The purpose of HDR...?

M

Mannytkd

Suspended / Banned
Messages
33
Edit My Images
No
I have a question about HDR and having tried it the colours don't seem to look right or is this the way HDR works...??

I looked at Petemc's work and they do look good, i do have 'photomatix' and i just can't get my head around it, the over all image goes all wierd, i mean with the colout....??
 
The purpose of HDR is exactly as it says on the tin... i.e: High Dynamic Range imaging. It allow a single image to be created - best made from several composite images - that then represents a much larger spectrum of exposure values in the single image.

Pete's niche is HDR and is very good at these images, I on the other hand... am not... :) It's a learning/playing curve and gets better with practice.
 
No Real answer here, but the first time I saw HDR ( may have been some of Pete's work I am not sure) I will admit that I thought it was 'orrible, now I find myself "playing "with it :D
but not with any success at the moment though
 
Me neither Chris, well... 99% total rubbish... 0.9% rubbish and 0.1% somewhat identifiable as HDR... :)
 
Thnx John, i know what it means and like you am not good at working it out, but i have seen some awsome images done this way.

Is it also a taste of whether you like the technique or not because of the range of colours that can appear....??

I'll have to look at Pete's tutorials and give it a go?
 
HDR, as I understand it, depends a lot on the tone mapping of the combined imagining.. I.E. Playing with the sliders until you get a decent image. Most of my HDR's have looked terrible to start with, but with a bit of tone mapping, they've ended up ok. (nothing like Pete's mind you :lol:)
 
HDR has a 'spectrum' all of its own. MM's description is about right, but you have to remember that it can be applied by degrees, from the so subtle as to be barely visible, to extreme pushed, 'special effects' style if you like. Often the colours will have to be desaturated later in ps, especially reds, as they often end up blown in order to get the rest of the image looking right. I dont claim to be any kind of Pete type expert, but I can say that it does take some practice on the tone mapping side to get an acceptable image, whichever end of the spectrum you are aiming at.
 
Well, I understood HDR to be not so much the range of colours that can appear, but rather the range of exposures that can appear. Sure, this might relate to the range of colours in the final image, but not necessarily.

Personally, I like the technique, ad enjoy playing around with it. You should look at some of the other HDR images on here, they are stunning.
 
theMusicMan said:
Me neither Chris, well... 99% total rubbish... 0.9% rubbish and 0.1% somewhat identifiable as HDR... :)
Click to expand...

That good Huh? thats a 100x better than me :D

theMusicMan said:
Personally, I like the technique, ad enjoy playing around with it. You should look at some of the other HDR images on here, they are stunning.
Click to expand...

I do too, now its grown on me, and I also agree there are some pretty stunning examples on here :thumbs:
 
And don't forget the one Marcel did recently ... CLICKY

I like HDR, I also like layering shots at the moment so some of it is HDR and some of it's not.
 
Oh yes, forgot about that one, and is undoubtedly one of the best HDR shots I've seen. Class Marcel, sheer class.
 
I'm just off out but I'll leave you with this. None of the shots you've seen are HDR :D
 
petemc said:
I'm just off out but I'll leave you with this. None of the shots you've seen are HDR :D
Click to expand...
Funny that Pete.... Marcel would disagree, taken from his thread...

Marcel said:
Of course it's been HDR'd / Tone Mapped.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you're trying to say here Pete by making that comment; if you have something to add, then why not simply add it rather than post in this somewhat 'oooh I wonder what Pete knows' manner... :)
 
Cos its more fun :p I like to make people stew a little. Basically a HDR image has a contrast ratio of 4,294,967,296:1 and your display maybe 500:1. "HDR" is nothing more than a buzzword these days. The images you see have been tone mapped from a HDRI. Thats the short answer.
 
Well I don't 'stew' on what you post sorry, and I am sure many others here don't either.

Now then... that reply is much better... but I thought you were off out...?? ;)
 
OR to put it more simply, You computyer screen does not have the capacity to even show a genuine high dynamic range image, so an image that has been produced from 3 images and tone mapped isn't technically speaking HDR, its tone mapping - its a lower quality version of the original concept, with a better range of exposure/colour than your camera is able to produce from a single shot. ;)


Although on that basis, I thin Pete should rename his guide tone mapping ;)


edit, of course its helps if I get the terminolgy the right way round!! duuurrhhhh edited now LOL
 
I think the biggest idea of HDR is to replicate what our eyes can see that cameras just cant.
 
theMusicMan said:
Well I don't 'stew' on what you post sorry, and I am sure many others here don't either.

Now then... that reply is much better... but I thought you were off out...?? ;)
Click to expand...

You're no fun :p I did go out. I'm back now.

LadyLens said:
Although on that basis, I thin Pete should rename his guide tone mapping ;)
Click to expand...

Well thats the thing. If I call it a tone mapping guide no-ones going to google it. As bad as the buzzword is, its the buzzword that everyone knows for these images. The process is to take 3 images to increase the dynamic range of the final image. Your display can't fully show all that dynamic range because its contrast ratio isn't high enough so you have to compress the data back down into a useable form. Thats what tone mapping is. So my guide is basically all about tone mapping. My new guide that I'm still tweaking is more about the entire thing. So I guess you could call it HDR processing if you want because at some point it was HDR. Its a methodology, a way, a thing :D
 
Annoyingly you're competing with the rest of the Interweb. They all know HDR as that over-processed painting like effect. I think its ok on a basic level to say that the way you did it was using HDR processing but the final image isn't a HDR image.
 
HDR/tone mapping is often way overcooked, imo. It's not at all very subtly used in most cases*. It's often a bit like a kid that's found a crutch and uses it as a pole vault.

*Of course in cases that it was applied subtly, I wouldn't know....
 
HDR can be a useful tool when used in moderation, the trouble is it does have the propensity to turn a boring image into a gaudy & boring image.
 
Who needs HDR processing when you can get a shot straight out the Fuji S5 Pro like this:

http://s48.photobucket.com/albums/f206/laser_jock99/Alderney/?action=view&current=DSCF0352.jpg

Rember- this is an unaltered shot straight into the rising sun - which has not burnt out in any way- and you can still see loads of detail and colour on the unlit, darkside of the boat. Show me a current Nikon or Canon CCD that can do this straight out of camera?

Nikon & Canon are currently working on new CCD's to widen the dynamic range in-camera. That said, good HDR photo's are an artform in themselves. The slightly unatural look has to be accepted part of the 'HDR genre'.
 
I'd hardly say it was that impressive straight out of the camera. The boat is mostly in shadow. The only way I see loads of detail and colour is if I angle my display, which isn't the best way to edit your images.
 
petemc said:
I'd hardly say it was that impressive straight out of the camera. The boat is mostly in shadow. The only way I see loads of detail and colour is if I angle my display, which isn't the best way to edit your images.
Click to expand...

I not sure if you're missing my point. Given an identical exposure most CDD's would either burn out on the sun & sky and/or show nothing (or at best dark, noisy detail) on the darkside of the boat- even with post processing.

Why do you need to move your monitor around- is it calibrated properly?
 
My display is perfectly calibrated, and I see no detail unless I move it. Even if it does have more detail than a normal 12bit sensor its no HDR processed image.
 
Mannytkd said:
I have a question about HDR and having tried it the colours don't seem to look right or is this the way HDR works...??

I looked at Petemc's work and they do look good, i do have 'photomatix' and i just can't get my head around it, the over all image goes all wierd, i mean with the colout....??
Click to expand...


Don't bother getting your head round it, perhaps in a year or two when it's been developed and progressed to a state where it can be taken seriously.

Until then, you are far better concentrating on developing your photography.
 
laser_jock99 said:
Who needs HDR processing when you can get a shot straight out the Fuji S5 Pro like this:

http://s48.photobucket.com/albums/f206/laser_jock99/Alderney/?action=view&current=DSCF0352.jpg

Rember- this is an unaltered shot straight into the rising sun - which has not burnt out in any way- and you can still see loads of detail and colour on the unlit, darkside of the boat. Show me a current Nikon or Canon CCD that can do this straight out of camera?

.
Click to expand...

It's just an OK image, any decent DSLR is capable of producing similar results.
 
Les McLean said:
Don't bother getting your head round it, perhaps in a year or two when it's been developed and progressed to a state where it can be taken seriously.

Until then, you are far better concentrating on developing your photography.
Click to expand...

A valid point. A HDR processed image is only as good as the source image. In all its years Photoshop still can't unblur a photo and HDR can't do magic. HDR has been around since at least the mid 90's. Its tone mapping that needs a bit of polish to fix some issues. However I am still 100% convinced that its a valid technique right now and its only up to the photographer to decide how to use it. Take this for example. It doesn't look "HDR" but its a perfect valid use of the technology and looks fantastic. Right now of course its just too popular for its own good meaning that thousands of people have the ability to produce terribly processed photos creating the anti-hdr groups.
 
I can't see us getting HDR in camera in the next 5 years. It will be slow. The problem you have is that displays cannot really show a high dynamic range image, and they've been working on this for over 10 years. Camera processing, computers, displays, all have to start moving on. Small increases in dynamic range will slowly happen. Your average hassleblad is only 16bit not 32bit. Personally I think RAW editors should be improved so that you can control the exposure on various levels, not just across the board. The amount of detail you can get from 1 RAW is impressive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top