First try and HDR

[Boycie999]

I know this type of photography isn't to everyones taste but thought I would give it a go.
3 pics I took today. C + C....what have I done wrong. Im using photomatix to process the files and shooting in RAW.

[Simpo Two]

Well the white balance is off and the whole thing looks rather radioactive, but that may be the effect you want.

Dunno, what did you want?

[cottonfoo]

You aren't going to see much benefit unless you have areas that are quite under or over-exposed. HDRing an image that is exposed fine just makes it look like that

[GetCarter]

As documented, I'm not a fan of HDR... yet I use it almost every day.

Subtle - it's a really good tool (when curves won't do).

Car Crash HDR is what many/most people do.

I have ruined many images with HDR whilst playing with it... my best tip: Keep the best original image safe - in a few months, you'll like that far more than the HDR nightmare.

IMHO of course.

Edited by GetCarter on Wednesday 16th March 19:52

[cottonfoo]

There's an HDR thread on Flyertalk, almost every single person has set every option to "11"

[matheson]

There's a lot of halos, noise, & fringing and the WB is miles out.

Have a look at Stuck in Customs

[tinman0]

Boycie999 said:

I know this type of photography isn't to everyones taste but thought I would give it a go.
3 pics I took today. C + C....what have I done wrong. Im using photomatix to process the files and shooting in RAW.

Contrast is too high I think. Hence the tone change between the contrasted objects giving that outline.

I've been experimenting a lot with HDR, but my recent efforts have really been to tone it down so it's not so obvious. If someone can say "that's HDR", in my book I just failed badly. I probably wouldn't get one of my toned down shots past GetCarter or Simpo, but as long as I can get past most people, I'm happy.

Another problem with HDR is the sky. There are some skies where HDR just looks good. But it looks too good. And everyone coo's over the amazing effect, when in reality you just pointed the camera at the sky and munged the lot together. A monkey could have got the same shot so there is no real art to it.

The thing to learn about HDR is when to use and when not to as it can get awfully addictive at the end of the day, and you can use it to the detriment of everything else.

Anyway, here's one I'm happy to show. Maybe.


IMG_5546_tonemapped by Tinman00, on Flickr

[dxbtiger]

Whilst looking into

a) how to physically take the photos (I'm a n00b)
b) how to process them (I'm a n00b)

I saw so many (read most) example of HDR that looked made me feel like I was watching a cartoon on acid.

I think the key is to use it to only show you what the eye see's but the camera cannot catch, overly done it's terrible, done correctly (Steve et al) it's lovely and subtle

It doesn't work for every shot, the comment above I would agree with.

Here are my 2 favourite HDR shots from the limited number I have tried, both would have been 'good' shots without but HDR added to them.

Both these were 3 shot exposures in jpg (I know, I know).

Feel free to disagree with any of the above rookie ramblings.


Burj Al Arab Sunset by thisisrobbo, on Flickr


Dubai Marina by thisisrobbo, on Flickr

[Whitefly Swatter]

GetCarter is right (again) subtle is good
My attempt

mushroom by bobshepherdphotography, on Flickr

this one started out as HDR but then I tinkered

Liverpool Cathedral 6 by bobshepherdphotography, on Flickr

[...Mole...]

My subtleness in HDR usually varies quite a bit.
For landscapes i just use it to increase the Dynamic Range.


But for Urbex stuff i prefer a more stylised look. So It looks a lot more HDR-like.

[GetCarter]

<<< likes nearly all moles HDR stuff.

[Gad-Westy]

I don't think the indoor shot is too overdone. To me it doesn't look too far away from what I'd expect the eye to see. To me that is the way it should be used. I have tried the 'turn it up to 11' approach and it's quite fun but I wouldn't want one hung on my wall.

[cottonfoo]

The exposure is fine in that instance (WB aside), there are no details lost in highlights or shadows - which is what HDR is for. It also looks nothing like what the eye would see. It is not the way HDR should be used, but is a common mistake for beginners.

[Seany88]

cottonfoo said:

The exposure is fine in that instance (WB aside), there are no details lost in highlights or shadows - which is what HDR is for. It also looks nothing like what the eye would see. It is not the way HDR should be used, but is a common mistake for beginners.

I haven't really tried taking any HDR pictures yet, but this is what I understand HDR to be for - adding in missing details from highlights and shadows that you wouldn't be able to show from just one exposure?

How does one do it? I know the setting on my camera allows me to take 3 successive pictures at under, over and correct exposure but do people use tripods so they're perfect overlays? I use CS5 and guess you'd just blend them together? (Sorry if its a n00b question)

[...Mole...]

Seany88 said:

I haven't really tried taking any HDR pictures yet, but this is what I understand HDR to be for - adding in missing details from highlights and shadows that you wouldn't be able to show from just one exposure?

How does one do it? I know the setting on my camera allows me to take 3 successive pictures at under, over and correct exposure but do people use tripods so they're perfect overlays? I use CS5 and guess you'd just blend them together? (Sorry if its a n00b question)

I use a tripod for Stability, Photomatix can correct handheld shots but it isn't always great. My D200 allows me to take up to 9 exposures for bracketing so I usually use 7 or 9 exposures for blending, I find it makes the image a bit smoother.

[cottonfoo]

Yes a tripod is handy for bracketing, but if you can brace it against something solid (like a bridge in this instance) you might get away with it with higher shutter speeds:

Topotuku River, Milford Sound by cottonfoo, on Flickr

[Boycie999]

cottonfoo said:

Yes a tripod is handy for bracketing, but if you can brace it against something solid (like a bridge in this instance) you might get away with it with higher shutter speeds:

Topotuku River, Milford Sound by cottonfoo, on Flickr

Now that is an awesome photo. I think ive got a lot to learn..

[tinman0]

Boycie999 said:

Now that is an awesome photo. I think ive got a lot to learn..

One suggestion I'd make is to see how over exposing +2/3 of a stop with a 3 shot +1/-1 AEB, especially at night goes.

If you have a dark frame it will kill the hdr results.

[flat-planedCrank]

General HDR musings ...

Most of the 'HDR look' is basically just strong tone mapping.

Imo, its a shame that 'HDR' is now a by-word for a very stylised, loads-of-localised-contrast image (you can easily generate an 'HDR look' image with the Unsharp Mask in photoshop - nothing HDR in that).

It can also be used to wonderful effect to subtly increase the dynamic range of a photo to, for example, approximate human vision.


My 1/250th of a cent

Edited by flat-planedCrank on Friday 18th March 22:02

[Seany88]

...Mole... said:

I use a tripod for Stability, Photomatix can correct handheld shots but it isn't always great. My D200 allows me to take up to 9 exposures for bracketing so I usually use 7 or 9 exposures for blending, I find it makes the image a bit smoother.

Does anyone know how to set up more than 3 exposures when bracketting on a 7D? It only seems to do 3 for me, or shall i just set each exposure manually?