HDR advice

[joescrivens]

The only one I'm *sure* of is #3, but it's hard to tell. I could easily be wrong too.

3 is hdr.

 

[Trev Rich]

HDR is a tool. The same restoring of dynamic range can be done without by masking images in PS, but, damn, HDR is easier. I use it to recreate what I saw that the camera couldn't rather than producing some crazy cartoon. This image is obviously HDR to the trained eye, but to anyone else it's just well exposed.
*note - on my wife's very bright laptop this looks flat, but processed on my screen it doesn't. Hope mine is a closer representation.*
clickable.

Yeah it's awesome
But it won't straighten your verticles

 

[HoppyUK]

HDR is a tool. The same restoring of dynamic range can be done without by masking images in PS, but, damn, HDR is easier. I use it to recreate what I saw that the camera couldn't rather than producing some crazy cartoon. This image is obviously HDR to the trained eye, but to anyone else it's just well exposed.
*note - on my wife's very bright laptop this looks flat, but processed on my screen it doesn't. Hope mine is a closer representation.*
clickable.

Super pic and a great example of HDR

As you say, to the untrained eye it looks entirely normal but I suspect that without HRD it would have been just a silhouette with a nice sky. And you couldn't do it with a grad

Out of interest, what were the exposures?

 

[The23rdman]

3 is hdr.

Yay! Do I win a prize?

Yeah it's awesome
But it won't straighten your verticles

Unless they're stupidly wonky it never bothers me much.

Super pic and a great example of HDR

As you say, to the untrained eye it looks entirely normal but I suspect that without HRD it would have been just a silhouette with a nice sky. And you couldn't do it with a grad

Out of interest, what were the exposures?

Cheers. Three RAW's - 0, +2, -2.

 

[joescrivens]

Yay! Do I win a prize?

Only if you correctly guess all the HDRs in the thread

 

[Shiskine]

I think really obvious HDR can be like this but it can also be very subtle

Took my first HDR shots a month or so ago and still getting my head round it.

Below is a shot I took of the Whitelee Windfarm south of Glasgow (largest in Europe). As I understand it, the camera's optimal exposure was always going to give an overexposed sky and underexposed foreground unless I used a graduated ND filter. Given I don't own such a thing, isn't HDR a quick and easy way of producing a more realistic result without the extra equipment, or am I still copping out?

I used AEB +/- 2 stops to create three images merged in Photomatix to produce the second image. (I had to recrop the first one for posting on here so it doesn't quite match)

Obviously the turbine blades were moving and whilst Photomatix made a reasonable job of compensating for their movement, I still had to tidy up in Photoshop. I took these in the morning when I really should have done so in the evening to get the sun on the turbines themselves.

Do serious photographers still frown on HDR even the finished result is a more realistic image, ie. as seen with the naked eye?

I agree there are some dreadful HDR images out there - just Google "bad HDR" - and I can see that some probably despair at the lack of talent (and taste) required to produce them.

I'll certainly be doing more HDR shots to get more realism into my landscapes.