hdr where to start

woody12

woody12

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,452
Name
paul
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi, not sure if this is the right place to post but would love to have a go at HDR but unsure the best programs to try. Are there trail versions of software and is Hdr fairly easy to try? Just want to have a go and see if it inspires me or maybe i'll hate it as i know its not everyones cup of tea. Thanks for any help
 
You can download a trial version of Photomatix and there are even some bracketed photos online to get you started. The trial version is the same as the full version but it puts a watermark on the final image.
Have fun.

J
 
Don't do it - step away from the 'faux photographer' setting and return to the real world.

.DAVID.

self admitting HDR detester
 
Hi, If you are going or want to go down that awful look road of grunge then it really does not matter but if you want to try HDR for natural looking images I would suggest trying (1) NIK HDR Pro (2) SNS-HDR (3) Oloneo engine.
Have a look at http://www.niksoftware.com/learnmor...ith-dr-jason-odell/0/41/0/new-to-old/0/page:1

and stay away from stuckincustoms JMO but not a good site for natural HDR.

Do not listen to anyone who says "stay away for HDR" or anyone that says "go for HDR" make your own mind up as it is you who has to decide!!!!
Russ
 
Why on earth are some of you guys telling him NOT to do it :cuckoo:

What next? LensBaby - NO, TiltShift lens/effect - NO, Fisheye lens - NO, 'Dragoniser effect' - NO, B&W - NO !!! etc.

HDR can be a great tool for solving an exposure problem or simply a way to create wacky art - totally up to the photographer - do what you like with it Woody12 and develop your own style :)

Nothing to add re comments on software above :thumbs:

Dave
 
I dislike HDR too but wouldn't tell someone not to do it.

- Should people only produce images that you like, should they only do paintings that you like, design cars that you like etc, etc,
If your answer is yes then you have the problem not the person using HDR...
 
DG Phototraining said:
Why on earth are some of you guys telling him NOT to do it :cuckoo:

What next? LensBaby - NO, TiltShift lens/effect - NO, Fisheye lens - NO, 'Dragoniser effect' - NO, B&W - NO !!! etc.

HDR can be a great tool for solving an exposure problem or simply a way to create wacky art - totally up to the photographer - do what you like with it Woody12 and develop your own style :)

Nothing to add re comments on software above :thumbs:

Dave
Click to expand...

ernesto said:
I dislike HDR too but wouldn't tell someone not to do it.

- Should people only produce images that you like, should they only do paintings that you like, design cars that you like etc, etc,
If your answer is yes then you have the problem not the person using HDR...
Click to expand...

:clap:

Some HDR is awful, some is okay and some is brilliant.
Some help HERE from Moose Peterson.
 
Ignore the people who say don't and give it a try yourself. Download Picturenaut, which is a free program, use it for a couple of months and then make a decision. I'm not a great lover of HDR, but on the odd occasion I find something that would benefit from stacking and this software will stack 7 images.

Link:- http://picturenaut.en.softonic.com/
 
It's o.k. if you can't see that it has been done but most HDR images I have seen look like the ideal backgrounds to photoshop a couple of unicorns into.

Or use film which already has a high dynamic range.


Steve.
 
Thanks for all the help and advice. I think that HDR is like marmite you either hate or love it. Thats the beauty of photography its like art everyone has a different view and take on it. People heap a pile of rubbish in a empty room and call that art and people rave about it, so like i say its all relative to what you see and intrepect. Anyway i only want to try and might hate the results of hdr so just want to dip my toe in first. thanks again
 
I have tried NIK HDR Pro2 and PhotomatixPro.....and much prefer the customability of Photomatix.
HDR can be a useful tool (in the right hands). I've done some HDRs' which I know were way overdone (but at least I know it). I think it's trying to find the right balance.
A book I can recommend though is "Practical HDR" by David Nightingale. It shows all styles of HDR images/effects and is a good read. It also shows various types of software.
Hope this helps.
JohnyT
 
The trouble with HDR is, there are more bad examples than good around on sites like flickr
Done well though it can create a great image, I rarely use HDR preferring to manually merge images but I do have and occasionally use Photomatix and SNS-HDR.

Photomatix tends to look a bit garish unless you are able to hold back a bit, if you can then the results can be very good.

SNS tends to give a more natural look straight out of the box.
 
I have not used any free HDR software, but it is definitely worth a try.

Photomatix which is not free, but compared to quite a lot of other photo editing applications is not expensive, is good and easy to use.

Ignore anyone who says you should not use any HDR. It is just a tool like any other editing software; they will probably tell you that you should only ever shoot in manual!

Dave
 
The easiest way is to get a Canon 5D MkIII and put it into the built in HDR mode. I've had my 5D MkIII for nearly a year now and have only ever tried it out once and that was difficult cause I was shooting handheld. I've not tried the multiple exposure thing either yet. I should try it at least once and give it a fair go to see what it's like, I'm just not really a 'gimmicky' type photographer though.
 
Have played with HDR a little - the Photomatix trial is a good introduction to seeing what it's all about and whether you want to follow up.....

Nik is worth a try too - but just be aware that only works with Lightroom (3 or 4) or Photoshop CS4 and above (and Aperture on Mac). So if you're not using any of those then Nik isn't for you. (Doesn't work with Elements....)

And another vote for ignoring those that say "don't do it" - it's just as stupid as me telling you to throw away your camera simply because I've seen lots of crap photos that I don't like :)
 
modchild said:
The easiest way is to get a Canon 5D MkIII and put it into the built in HDR mode. I've had my 5D MkIII for nearly a year now and have only ever tried it out once and that was difficult cause I was shooting handheld. I've not tried the multiple exposure thing either yet. I should try it at least once and give it a fair go to see what it's like, I'm just not really a 'gimmicky' type photographer though.
Click to expand...

hmmm let me see, 5D mkIII over £2000

Photomatix Pro < £100

SNS-HDR Home around £20
 
Now you've mentioned it yeah stop using the lensbaby and fisheye too! ;)

I find i can do a better job just using ACR than i can ever get from photomatix.
 
Last edited:
rjbell said:
Now you've mentioned it yeah stop using the lensbaby and fisheye too! ;)

I find i can do a better job just using ACR than i can ever get from photomatix.
Click to expand...

So don't stop using the lens baby and fish eye, use photo matrix and learn to use it properly, I have brought it, don't use it much, but it is a very powerful tool if and when you need it.
 
markmullen said:
Why not shoot one frame and play with the highlights and shadows if necessary.
Click to expand...

Indeed that can work but often it's just not able to bring out the detail of a good HDR ... and if it comes to that, why not HDR?
 
Out of interest, how do people rate the HDR function of PS CS6? I've used it a few times and there don't seem to be many controls but it definitely seems to leave a fairly natural looking pic :)
 
not sure if it changed much from CS5. CS5 is probably most natural of most of HDR programs. depends on effect you want reallistic to baked HDR. Baked natural can both be done in Photomatrix. Earlier verson of photomatrix and pro version give slightly different tones.
 
Reminds me of a magazine article I once read...... it was before the InterWeb took over the information age.

The article was entitled "Digital SLR Camera's - what other useless Camera's will they think of next?"

I'll leave that thought with you haters of HDR :p
 
Yeah it's probably the same then as it seems very natural to me which is what a HDR should be.

The other stuff that people often produce just seems to be a caricature of HDR
 
angusallan said:
How does HDR actually work?
Click to expand...

Basically, it is a method of increasing the dynamic range of an image.
So, if you take a shot of lets say a sunset landscape with the "correct exposure", you might find that although the mid-tones are correctly exposed, the highlights might be over exposed, and the shadows might be under exposed.
So then you take a couple more images, one which exposes for the shadows, and another which correctly exposes the highlights.
Then you need to merge all 3 images in software. Photomatix seems to be the one which most recommend. The software merges all 3, and you end up with an image with a much wider dynamic range than the single shot.
the problem is, as you will have guessed, a lot of people tend to over-do it, and spoil what could be a nice image.
 
Who said hdr is not realistic. Its very realistic if you live life under the influence of Lysergic acid diethylamide

I love normal photography. Although I have never tried hdr, I do absolutely love the examples I have seen. The wackier the better for me.
 
HDR is nothing new at all. Anyone wishing to see early examples need only look up Gustave le Gray's images from the 1850's and he was using HDR in some seascapes.
 
woody12 said:
Thanks for all the help and advice. I think that HDR is like marmite you either hate or love it. Thats the beauty of photography its like art everyone has a different view and take on it. People heap a pile of rubbish in a empty room and call that art and people rave about it, so like i say its all relative to what you see and intrepect. Anyway i only want to try and might hate the results of hdr so just want to dip my toe in first. thanks again
Click to expand...

Marmite, that is exactly what i thought when i did my first hdr shots yesterday.

It just looks odd, buy it was an urban environment.

Landscape might be different.
 
Hi all.
No expert here.
I do like to see some hdr images simply because done right by those that have mastered it manage to create stunning images. I myself have not but following a thread in the general feedback section :re estate agent photos/interiors, I was amazed at what could be achieved as there photos still looked liked photos.

Gaz
 
GHP said:
Basically, it is a method of increasing the dynamic range of an image.
So, if you take a shot of lets say a sunset landscape with the "correct exposure", you might find that although the mid-tones are correctly exposed, the highlights might be over exposed, and the shadows might be under exposed.
So then you take a couple more images, one which exposes for the shadows, and another which correctly exposes the highlights.
Click to expand...

And is a technique as old as photography itself, almost!

Before computers came along, it was a dark-room technique, exposing a print from first a 'light' negative then a 'dark' one, and with a little dodging & burning to tidy up the merge edges, was how many of the 'great' photo's of antiquity were achieved, when the home made egg-white on glass film emulsion often had about as much exposure lattitude as a lith-film... and was almost the only way to get a 'natural' looking print with out blacked out shaddows and white-out sky.

HDR is simply an automated digital composite exposure that, done with knowledge, consideration & fore-thought, can help produce incredibly subtle 'natural' photographs, as in days of antiquity, stretching the capabilities of the means & materials at our disposal... OR used to create much more obvious, bizarre surreal and artistic effects.

And of course, used without for-thought, craft of knowledge, because 'its the latest thing'... to create... well..... novelty images after the novelty has worn rather thin.

Like ant photographic technique, its a tool in the toolbox, like the camera itself, and may be used well or badly, or not at all. Your call.
 
GHP said:
Basically, it is a method of increasing the dynamic range of an image.
So, if you take a shot of lets say a sunset landscape with the "correct exposure", you might find that although the mid-tones are correctly exposed, the highlights might be over exposed, and the shadows might be under exposed.
So then you take a couple more images, one which exposes for the shadows, and another which correctly exposes the highlights.
Then you need to merge all 3 images in software. Photomatix seems to be the one which most recommend. The software merges all 3, and you end up with an image with a much wider dynamic range than the single shot.
the problem is, as you will have guessed, a lot of people tend to over-do it, and spoil what could be a nice image.
Click to expand...

Thanks for explanation. I think i might get my hands on the photomatix software and try it out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top