20 amazing pics that could be HDR but aren't

P

petemc

Suspended / Banned
Messages
9,504
Name
Pete
Edit My Images
No
Just been sent this link. Its great. 20 amazing images that could be HDR but are definitely not. Take a look. Its going to be eye opening for some I'm sure. You could easily say that the HDR has been overcooked on some, but it hasn't. Its so easy to see a punchy image and ask about how it was HDR'd. Its so easy to forget the power horse that is Photoshop.

For example, this photo. "Oh noes! Ze HDR is overcooked!" But its not HDR. (rest of her not-hdr set)

You can make a photo good or bad with HDR. You can make a photo good or bad with RAW. You can make a photo good or bad with Photoshop. You can make a photo good or bad with film. You can make a photo good or bad.
 
I do think that HDR is just the latest photography (and technology in general actually) buzzword to be honest. Some nice shots in that collection but I certainly wouldn't have looked at them and though wow, must have used some fancy HDR technique. Thanks for posting though!
 
Wowzers. Some of those are mightily impressive. Does it go into how they were actually processed then ?
 
OPTIMALLY PROCESSED TECHNIQUE"

I have come up with my own technique of post processing which has a similar look to HDR, but is not HDR.
Click to expand...

Does she explain anywhere how she processes the pics?, or is she out to annoy me?.
 
gingerjon said:
I realise I may be being a bit thick here (wouldn't be the first time) but why does it matter if they are or are not 'HDR'?
Click to expand...

Well at its most basic level if you wanted to achieve the same effect it would be nice to know what it was to do so.

Yes benneh, she's out to get you :D
 
gingerjon said:
I realise I may be being a bit thick here (wouldn't be the first time) but why does it matter if they are or are not 'HDR'?
Click to expand...

Ha, have you not seen/ been in an HDR thread with Mr Peter MC before.

:popcorn:
 
thats awesome, thanks for that post processing is really something i need to learn it makes so much difference to know your software...:( photoshop lessons here i come
 
I don't mind Pete or Peter :p Its the last part, M C are two seperate words :p
 
anyway back on topic, they are good images, i would say one or two of them are over processed, but they still work well
 
OK this is going to be interesting :D
From Wikipedia :-

high dynamic range imaging (HDRI or just HDR) is a set of techniques that allows a greater dynamic range of luminances between light and dark areas of a scene than normal digital imaging techniques. The intention of HDRI is to accurately represent the wide range of intensity levels found in real scenes ranging from direct sunlight to shadows.

The dynamic range has obviously been increased "one way or another"
so by definition they must be HDR :shrug:
 
Are you saying the "dynamic ranges" have not been increased?
 
At least one of them said it had been tone mapped.. to me thats ALMOST the same thing isn't it??

At the end of the day, they are great looking images, and well processed..
 
fraggle101 said:
At least one of them said it had been tome mapped.. to me thats ALMOST the same thing isn't it??

At the end of the day, they are great looking images, and well processed..
Click to expand...

yeh tone mapping is quite similar, i use that occasionally when i only have one image
 
Nope :) This is one of the key issues with HDR. Everyone starts going off about what it is, redinfnes it to suite their ideas. An 8bit jpg doesn't have the contrast ratio to display a true HDR image. Just because it has a greater dynamic range doesn't mean its HDR. The H stands for high, not greater.
 
im loving the knowledge im getting right now :D
 
gingerjon said:
I realise I may be being a bit thick here (wouldn't be the first time) but why does it matter if they are or are not 'HDR'?
Click to expand...


No idea...some peeps must think that disassociating images with the letters HDR, make em look ok..:shrug:
But its never about HDR, its always about how a photograph looks, HDR just carries the can for everything that looks like kak, which ain't fair really.
 
Oh and here's my two entries into photos that could be HDR but aren't :) Although I don't think these are quite as spectacular but I like 'em!



 
Cobra said:
OK this is going to be interesting :D
From Wikipedia :-

high dynamic range imaging (HDRI or just HDR) is a set of techniques that allows a greater dynamic range of luminances between light and dark areas of a scene than normal digital imaging techniques. The intention of HDRI is to accurately represent the wide range of intensity levels found in real scenes ranging from direct sunlight to shadows.

The dynamic range has obviously been increased "one way or another"
so by definition they must be HDR :shrug:
Click to expand...

petemc said:
Nope :)
Click to expand...

Brilliant :lol:

So Pete, what IS high dynamic range?
Is it a description for a camera that has a high dynamic range?
Or do you have to actually take multiple exposures and combine them?

Enlighten me, oh powerful one :naughty:
 
A HDR is a 32bit image, an 8bit jpeg can never have a high dynamic range.
 
mole2k said:
A HDR is a 32bit image, an 8bit jpeg can never have a high dynamic range.
Click to expand...

That sounds wrong to me. You're talking about the colour range, not the dynamics. If I create an HDR image in Photomatix (or whatever) and then export it as a JPEG, it's still an HDR image.
 
As I understand it, it's only a HDR image between generating and tone-mapping (references to photomatix workflow). Since your monitor can't display all the info in the (true) HDR image, it appears as a horribly contrasty image before tone mapping. By tone-mapping you are "squashing" all that info down into 8 (or 16) bits, which can then of course be viewed properly.

BTW this thread title is very misleading :thinking: It makes two claims and only one of them is believable ;)
 
welly said:
That sounds wrong to me. You're talking about the colour range, not the dynamics. If I create an HDR image in Photomatix (or whatever) and then export it as a JPEG, it's still an HDR image.
Click to expand...

No it isn't, you've just tonemapped/compressed the 32bits down to an 8bit image so it's viewable on the monitor or printer. It is impossible to have an image that shows a high dynamic range with an output of 8bits, what you are doing is compressing the tonal range into a smaller space so it's viewable.

After the 3 images are merged you have a 32bit HDR image but with todays technology that's pretty useless unless you have some very expensive fancy technology. You have to compress the tones to give you a low dynamic range image that represents the detail present in the HDR.
 
>Photographer Comment : “This is not an HDR. I repeat: This is not an HDR. This is a f/7.1, 1/125 s single exposure in Raw. The RAW was processed in Digital Photo Professional (White balace, luminance, saturation etc. were adjusted). Then imported into photomatix and Tone mapped. That tiff was taken to PS and unsharp Mask, soft light layer 3% Gaussian blur at 49%, soft light layer at 15% unsaturated and inverted, burn layer at 7%, Curves, Levels, Brightness/Contrast and Hue/Saturation and very modest dodging to the clouds”.

>Photographer : asmundur.

How poor must the original have been, I wonder? Whatever happened to 1/125th @ f8, good light, and being there?:shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top