Talk HDR......

andy_fozzy

andy_fozzy

SPAM Merchant
Suspended / Banned
Messages
7,450
Name
Andy!
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm really getting into HDR. I know not everyone likes it, but I'd like a thread where we can discuss techniques, share shots and how we made them, etc etc.....

So here it is :D

Show me your best HDR (and some tips on how you made it ;) )
 
ive never really got a good result

i think if the image is good enough and exciting enough it shouldn't need HDR'ing.

only acceptation being landscapes with clouds, as it can really help tone the sky
 
saxk said:
ive never really got a good result

i think if the image is good enough and exciting enough it shouldn't need HDR'ing.

only acceptation being landscapes with clouds, as it can really help tone the sky
Click to expand...

'Tis a good point....
Although it can also bring out a whole load more detail in a shot.
 
This shot for example:

witterings2HDR_filtered.jpg


Had very little detail, before I HDR'ed it!
(One of my fave shots btw).

Sorry about the watermark. I know some folk get annoyed my them, but gotta be careful!!
 
Its something I've never been able to grasp. The pics below are just a single jpeg and slightly edited in CS3 and HDR in another programme (Photomatix)

My bike,

4-1.jpg


My friends bike,

6-1.jpg


Another friend,

5-1.jpg
 
2And8more_colour_smaller.jpg


this is one of my most recent shots, I have been making HDR's for about a year now, love the detail it can give..
 
2860841788_c2b61728f5.jpg


I haven't used HDR much at all but here's one i might i thought I'd share.
 
andy_fozzy said:
This shot for example:

witterings2HDR_filtered.jpg


Had very little detail, before I HDR'ed it!
(One of my fave shots btw).

Sorry about the watermark. I know some folk get annoyed my them, but gotta be careful!!
Click to expand...

watermarks:bat:

:p

well thats my point, the sky looks alot better, be nice to compare it to the original ?
 
Quite a few people are willing to say if HDR is done properly, you won't notice that it's HDR at all. I completely agree with that statement and inwardly cringe every time I see garish HDR. Unfortunately since HDR photographs need to be tonemapped and it's tonemapping that causes this horrific look. Out of all of the HDR photographs I've done I think I actually quite like one of them, the rest are just rubbish. I think a common pitfall is for people to HDR a photograph in a last ditch effort to make it look "good".

Some people have made quite a name for themselves with HDR processing (Trey Ratcliff for one) but because that's what they because well known for they are entirely stuck in a rut. I'm sure that Trey Ratcliff has benefited financially from his work but sometimes wishes he never got into HDR. He may want to do a lot of very different things with his photography but he's somewhat trapped.
 
andy_fozzy said:
I'm really getting into HDR. I know not everyone likes it, but I'd like a thread where we can discuss techniques, share shots and how we made them, etc etc.....

So here it is :D

Show me your best HDR (and some tips on how you made it ;) )
Click to expand...

This subject has appeared so many times and yet still gets some peoples back up, always causing arguments and sometimes going off the original subject, so much so it becomes a bor.
There are many other forums that are supportive of this creative type of work, where you can share and talk about HDRI with out getting hung, drawn and quartered....:lol:
 
I am in the habit of taking bracketed exposures whenever I am taking shots of subjects with a high dynamic range. I'll try tonemapping them and if I think it looks better than any of the lone bracketed exposures then I might select it as the 'keeper', or I will just stick with the limited exposure :)

I don't like the glaring HDR effect, I just like it when the PP technique results in a better image. A lot of the time HDR processing can make an image look very flat imo.
 
saxk said:
watermarks:bat:

:p

well thats my point, the sky looks alot better, be nice to compare it to the original ?
Click to expand...

:D

Here's the original. Not touched, just concerted from RAW to JPEG:

020409.jpg


Bit of a difference eh?!!
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
HDRs can't stand them myself....a pointless overindulgence just because the real world happens to be very bright and very dark... pah!

I really hate this one mostly...

warmingrays.jpg


Ahrrr, disgusting ...

..sorry about this guys..

lonbridgehosp.jpg



:gag:

I'm going back to film I think...

:D
Click to expand...

:lol::lol::lol:

AMAZING images!!
 
Rocket said:
This subject has appeared so many times and yet still gets some peoples back up, always causing arguments and sometimes going off the original subject, so much so it becomes a bor.
There are many other forums that are supportive of this creative type of work, where you can share and talk about HDRI with out getting hung, drawn and quartered....:lol:
Click to expand...

Agreed. However, it's a kind of HDR appreciation thread, so if nobody appreciates it, they can either stay away, or not comment :thumbs:
 
Thanks for posting your images everyone. They are ALL superb!

Keep em coming!

Here's another from me which could very nearly be classed as 'overdone':

3356330382_d430ddd3dd.jpg


full size version of ALL my shots can be seen in my flickr
 
from what i have learned through the course i am taking the whole point of HDR is to show detail in highlights, midtones and shadows. the human eye has up to roughly 16 stops, (because it can move around and focus on different parts of a scene), where as a camera's dynamic range is only about 4-6 stops (the point of under exposure and over exposure). referring hdr to be pointless, etc, imho its the exact opposite. one shot can't show you everything that your eye sees in most situations. im sure its not the hdr people dont like, its the overprocessing. but hey, to each their own, as long as its all in fun! :thumbs:
 
I enjoy taking and looking at HDR pictures although I feel sometimes the image can look over cooked if you let the software take over –as they say ‘less is often more’



hdrtp1.jpg


TPcar4.jpg


tathdr800.jpg
 
Nikonian said:
from what i have learned through the course i am taking the whole point of HDR is to show detail in highlights, midtones and shadows. the human eye has up to roughly 16 stops, (because it can move around and focus on different parts of a scene), where as a camera's dynamic range is only about 4-6 stops (the point of under exposure and over exposure). referring hdr to be pointless, etc, imho its the exact opposite. one shot can't show you everything that your eye sees in most situations. im sure its not the hdr people dont like, its the overprocessing. but hey, to each their own, as long as its all in fun! :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Well said :clap:
(Nice shots Cyb).

I suppose it's when they are over done that people don't like them Like THIS.
Although Ben is an incredibly talented guy.........
 
andy_fozzy said:
It really does amaze me how anybody can NOT like HDR.
This thread already has proven that it makes images look heaps better......
Click to expand...

Its more the good use of HDR by the photographer that makes the image though isn't it Andy? All the shots in this thread have made use of its enhancements to good effect, but couldn't we just as easily show loads of stunners that would have been ruined by going anywhere near it?
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
Its more the good use of HDR by the photographer that makes the image though isn't it Andy? All the shots in this thread have made use of its enhancements to good effect, but couldn't we just as easily show loads of stunners that would have been ruined by going anywhere near it?
Click to expand...

You are right.
I could produce some good shots.
But all my GREAT shots have been HDR'ed. At least I think they are great :D
And no doubt have a few that would be ruined if they were HDR.......
 
 
I think it was Pxl8 who did some superb over-cooked hdrs of a basement/building site type place, wheel barrows, bricks and rubbish, in a similar way to David Thompson’s a few posts down, (great shot David) but with even more intense details.

Be good to see those of examples of when very overcooked works. ..anyone remember?

Apologies if I've gotten the wrong member


andy_fozzy said:
You are right.
I could produce some good shots.
But all my GREAT shots have been HDR'ed. At least I think they are great :D
And no doubt have a few that would be ruined if they were HDR.......
Click to expand...


Gotya, :thumbs: your shots fab I agree.
 
Hey guys... took this yesterday while i was at work, we went up to Holy Island and took a few of the disabled guys from down for a trip out.. was just taken as a snapshot no real thought into it..

3407750420_35faaa1ee0.jpg
 
Don't forget you can macro HDR too :lol: Not a huge difference on this one though.
Before
2595060149_4312e519b5.jpg


After
2614303740_c7fa99c866.jpg
 
animal168, not overdone at all, looks great! :thumbs:
 
Heavy use of HDR...

p489313563-4.jpg



... and subtle use of HDR...
p722990533-4.jpg
 
I think the trouble is many shots are processed for increasing the DR, when there is no need. Then it just looks processed.

Where HDR really comes into its own is whenit is used for what the technique was developed for....extending the dynamic range of tones that can be reproduced. In other words for lifting otherwise lost shadow detail and highlight detail.

When the lighting is flat, HDR will not rescue it, because there is NO HDR present - where you have deep shadows and bright highlights, then it will work, provided it is done carefully. By work, I mean you shouldn't see that it is HDR, it will just look like a good picture.

I haven't managed to work it out yet using Photomatix - my shots, even from the D3, come out very noisy/grainy and look aweful, regardless of the subject - it is the technical bit I haven't mastered, I turn otherwise noiseless individual images into terribly grainy heaps of junk....a scenario which I can see will have put many off when they also get crap results!
have a look at Pete Macs pictures - they are so smooth. I get the tones like you should, just gritty finishes which I haven't worked out how to get rid of yet....working on it though.
 
ive found when it comes to exporting my raw files to multiple exposures
and importing them in photomatix
they look really really really noisy and get weird oversaturated colours
does anyone know why that is??
even if the pictures been taken with a low iso, 100 in some cases??
 
Lensflare said:
I

I haven't managed to work it out yet using Photomatix - my shots, even from the D3, come out very noisy/grainy and look aweful, regardless of the subject - .
Click to expand...

noise Ninja is top for reducing grain

HDR Check Out Tutorial THIS SITE CLICKY

Aboves FLICKR SITE CLICKY This guys had a flickr explore every day for over 2 years super achievement kicks 360's and 52's into touch

Dave
 
I do the occasional HDR.

2122241311_12a7d1d7b2_o.jpg


2122258333_b9cae73697_o.jpg


2343902084_e78011ac74_o.jpg


2242357964_4e565808dd_o.jpg


Im not an overly big fan of the majority of ones that people do as I tend to see halo's on most of them and that just drives me mad. Also a lot of people seem to always fall into the trap of having the foreground lighter than the now processed into a dull grey sky/clouds.

I love the technique, just not the name it's got for itself through misuse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top