HDR (High Dynamic Range) photography - post your HDR

[svndmvn]

Still finding photomatix hard to figure out.

Are there any tone mapping "presets" that can be downloaded?

Or maybe if posters to this thread could maybe include the photomatix settings somehow.

I'm pretty sure that would help me and maybe others.

xmp files are not supported, so you just have to download these and eliminate the ".txt" extension
I also found useful Valdore's guidelines and other things I found googling
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1006&message=20459094&changemode=1
http://beforethecoffee.wordpress.com/hdr-post-processing-tutorial/ there's a lot more interesting stuff spreaded in this site

 

[valdore]

Here are screenshots of my tone mapping settings for a recent photo of mine that I find is a good example, because this photo goes for the dramatic, almost over-the-top HDR approach that many people find interesting.

A screenshot for Tone settings and one for Micro settings:

And this is my end result, after performing a few more tweaks in Photoshop plus applying B&W:

Note: One cannot rely on these settings to produce the optimal results for every potential HDR photo. However if I can get away with these settings seen in my screenshots, then I will. But there will be times when you have to take things down a few notches, because sometimes things don't always cooperate. It can be about compromises.

 

[Edge100]

Wentworth College, University of York

Canon EOS 10D
17-40 F4L @ 26mm
f/9.5
ISO 400
HDR from 3 tripod-mounted RAWs (-2, 0, 2)

Wentworth

 

[ipodtoucher]

ok here's one for today...lol

 

[TommyD]

ok here's one for today...lol

snip

Sorry, but these hdr's with people look plain weird. Skin looks dirty, just not flattering at all.

 

[ipodtoucher]

Sorry, but these hdr's with people look plain weird. Skin looks dirty, just not flattering at all.

I think thats kind of the point with HDR's of people...it shows you the nitty gritty of the world, not the perfect skin, flashy make up most portraits show... It kind of gives it a darker feeling...

 

[valdore]

I'm noticing with my own photos that it seems like totally different tone mapping settings are needed when doing portrait HDRs as compared to cityscape and urban HDRs.

 

[Scalfani]

First try here. I think it might be a bit too noisy, my ISO was 200. Apologize for the photomatix logo. Also any comments/suggestions would be much appreciated. Maybe too dark?

by the way how do you guys get your pictures to show up large in the post?

 

[wheezy]

Still in Hawaii, this is the view from the Iao Needle... I need to buy Photomatix!

 

[Edge100]

Canon 10D
17-40 F4L
ISO 100
HDR from one hand-held RAW

York Minster

 

[Edge100]

The Blue Bicycle

Canon 10D
17-40 F4L @ 40mm
f/4
ISO 100

The Blue Bicycle

 

[onomatopoeia]

Canon 10D
17-40 F4L @ 40mm
f/4
ISO 100

The Blue Bicycle
http://mikefraser.smugmug.com/photos/282344446_5YqzE-L.jpg​

That's really spectacular.
One of the best decisions to use HDR I've seen in quite a while. Good work.

 

[ipodtoucher]

I'm noticing with my own photos that it seems like totally different tone mapping settings are needed when doing portrait HDRs as compared to cityscape and urban HDRs.

What settings do you use?

 

[valdore]

What settings do you use?

I'd have to see. Usually just not as drastic of settings as with an urban landscape. Although recently I've taken to trashing my new portrait HDRs because the ones I've done in particular make the subject look worse.

 

[Edge100]

That's really spectacular.
One of the best decisions to use HDR I've seen in quite a while. Good work.

Thanks. I had done an edit with the original exposure, but I thought it might look nice in HDR. After some trial and error in Photomatix, this came out. I'm quite happy with it.

Very nice Work!!

Thanks. This is another one where I did some edits on the original, and it just kind of 'asked' to be done in HDR. I think the sky adds to the eerie quality of that one.

I also worked hard to get the lines exactly straight and the composition balanced. Not sure it's perfect, but I like how it turned out.

 

[ipodtoucher]

Ok first try with a flower...I think its a little to dramatic, but let me know what you think, or how you think i should change the settings to make it look a little better...CC welcome

Untitled

 

[iBecks]

xmp files are not supported, so you just have to download these and eliminate the ".txt" extension
I also found useful Valdore's guidelines and other things I found googling
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1006&message=20459094&changemode=1
http://beforethecoffee.wordpress.com/hdr-post-processing-tutorial/ there's a lot more interesting stuff spreaded in this site

thanks very much, I'll give them a try.

 

[ipodtoucher]

ok is there any way to generate an HDR from a single JPEG? i must be lost because if there is, i can't find it haha

 

[Ish]

Ok first try with a flower...I think its a little to dramatic, but let me know what you think, or how you think i should change the settings to make it look a little better...CC welcome

Untitled
[imurlg]http://api.photoshop.com/home_ea7714df14ad487683e894310bd4a622/adobe-px-assets/0923976d7b5046a293946e01128e1d01[/url]

I think you should turn the flower back to white. My first reaction - grey narcissus!

 

[iBecks]

xmp files are not supported, so you just have to download these and eliminate the ".txt" extension
I also found useful Valdore's guidelines and other things I found googling
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1006&message=20459094&changemode=1
http://beforethecoffee.wordpress.com/hdr-post-processing-tutorial/ there's a lot more interesting stuff spreaded in this site

Here's my attemp with the same hdr picture, using your tone map preset file.

I think it looks much better than my first attempt.

 

[onomatopoeia]

Here's my attemp with the same hdr picture, using your tone map preset file.

I think it looks much better than my first attempt.

I'm not sure which is the original and which is the new version but the one on the right looks much better. The colors are more realistic and there is much less noise. Judging by the nose cone, the saturation is still a bit too high.

Perhaps we should discuss when to use HDR? Tons of people are learning HDR but seem to be applying the technique to any capture without regard for how it fits the scene. IMO, HDR for the sake of HDR kills the art worse than the "over cooked" HDR.

HDR evokes drama more than anything else. A simple side view image of a car, for example, just looks odd when converted to HDR no matter the skill used in the HDR process. However, if the photographer gets in close to the car and takes a shot at a dynamic angle the HDR process can really help to add drama to the scene.

I, for one, would like to see users concerned less with the HDR process and more with getting a shot which will best lend itself to HDR. The actual process of generating an HDR is quite simple (trial and error, playing with the sliders until you get a result you like). However, the process of learning how to capture compelling images will make us all better photographers.

 

[Edge100]

Perhaps we should discuss when to use HDR? Tons of people are learning HDR but seem to be applying the technique to any capture without regard for how it fits the scene. IMO, HDR for the sake of HDR kills the art worse than the "over cooked" HDR.

HDR evokes drama more than anything else. A simple side view image of a car, for example, just looks odd when converted to HDR no matter the skill used in the HDR process. However, if the photographer gets in close to the car and takes a shot at a dynamic angle the HDR process can really help to add drama to the scene.

I, for one, would like to see users concerned less with the HDR process and more with getting a shot which will best lend itself to HDR. The actual process of generating an HDR is quite simple (trial and error, playing with the sliders until you get a result you like). However, the process of learning how to capture compelling images will make us all better photographers.

I agree 100% with this.

For me, HDR is best for photographs where (a) there is a real dynamic range issue or (b) there is an element of "drama" that can be brought out through the process.

In the case of (a), an ND grad filter is a good alternative, and I greatly prefer this on wide landscape shots (and, consequently, I tend not to like HDR shots of landscapes).

In the case of (b), I find cityscape/architecture shots benefit most from this. The effect of HDR on skies, particularly with whispy thin clouds on a blue sky or with ominous dark clouds, can really add to the look of cityscapes. HDR can even work on portraits, when you want to emphasize the grit.

I'm a relative newcomer to HDR, and when I first started with the technique, I went overboard a bit. I quickly discovered that it does not make up for poor composition (in fact, it makes things worse), but is a really great technique when used on the appropriate material.

 

[Edge100]

ok is there any way to generate an HDR from a single JPEG? i must be lost because if there is, i can't find it haha

Yup.

Open the jpeg in Photomatix, and then generate in the usual way from there. Be aware that jpegs have less exposure latitude than RAW, so you may not be able to "stretch" the file quite as much. But it can be done.

 

[ipodtoucher]

I'm not sure which is the original and which is the new version but the one on the right looks much better. The colors are more realistic and there is much less noise. Judging by the nose cone, the saturation is still a bit too high.

Perhaps we should discuss when to use HDR? Tons of people are learning HDR but seem to be applying the technique to any capture without regard for how it fits the scene. IMO, HDR for the sake of HDR kills the art worse than the "over cooked" HDR.

HDR evokes drama more than anything else. A simple side view image of a car, for example, just looks odd when converted to HDR no matter the skill used in the HDR process. However, if the photographer gets in close to the car and takes a shot at a dynamic angle the HDR process can really help to add drama to the scene.

I, for one, would like to see users concerned less with the HDR process and more with getting a shot which will best lend itself to HDR. The actual process of generating an HDR is quite simple (trial and error, playing with the sliders until you get a result you like). However, the process of learning how to capture compelling images will make us all better photographers.

Lol, I totally disagree haha...With this photo HDR makes it look like you were actually there when the plane first flew, back in the day. To make it look better try applying some sepia to it, giving it an older look...I agree that there are some images that don't need the HDR treatment, like the flower one i posted. I just thought i would try adding HDR to the image and post it here for critique....

 

[jag0009]

Hopefully this won't get me burned at the stake…

Does anyone feel like HDR is a little bit of cheating? I think it's a great effect, and produces some really great results, but IMO if you can't capture the scene in one exposure, using a program to correct for this incapability (usually of the equipment, not the photographer) is just wrong.

My photographic ethics run by what could and couldn't (can and can't) be done in a darkroom–so if there was some way to do HDR in a darkroom, it's photography straight up; otherwise, I think it's stepping away from photography and into modern art.

Well we do multiple exposures with film too! So I don't think HDR is really cheating (it's just a modern form of multiple exposure with the freedom of tweaking).

Here is a question for you guys. What is the advantage of Nikon's Active D-lighting? I mean it's just in camera processing right? We can achieve the same thing in Photoshop (or D-lighting command in Nikon Capture)?