My contribution for the monthSimple, but im happy with the way it turned out.
I am too
Great photo, deep, rich color.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
HDR (High Dynamic Range) photography - post your HDR
- Thread starter valdore
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I am too
Great photo, deep, rich color.
Took an evening trip to Berwick-Upon-Tweed (England's most Northerly town) yesterday. The main street was deserted for a change, so I managed to get some shots for HDR - here's one.....
Killin, Scotland.
Took a drive today and ended up in Killin, where i took the following pic.
Tried to keep the hdr treatment as natural looking as possible.
Took a drive today and ended up in Killin, where i took the following pic.
Tried to keep the hdr treatment as natural looking as possible.
I've been following this thread for some time as a means to learn something of HDR. Thought I'd share with you all my observations thus far:
* The HDR photos posted thus far suggest that the two best uses for it are 1) improved range in set shots that otherwise might be too dark (shadows, dull lighting, etc). And 2) an artistic, 'surreal', imagery. Both have their place.
* A photo that lacks composition, balance, or interest remains just that when rendered in HDR. HDR doesn't solve for a poorly composed or uninteresting photo.
* Some of the more manipulated photos become unfavorably grainy. Unless that is a desired look, seems to me that using higher MP cameras, RAW images, and lower ISO is something a few HDR photographers should adapt to.
* The use of the hyper-realism / surreal images seems to work best (have the most positive impact) when it brings out the emotional tone that the photographer sees. For instance, the painting-like quality of the people gathered around a smoky fire, or the eerie quality of the castle by the lake.
* I suspect that a lot of landscape and cityscape photography can be improved by the use of HDR, but with care to not create the surreal effects. Some of the pictures displayed here, if presented without knowledge that they were HDR, would otherwise be applauded for being great photos - because of their realistic but 'perfect' tonal range.
Anyway, that's what I've learned from following this thread. Now to go spend a few weeks playing with HDR myself. Thanks to to everyone who has contributed to this valuable thread.
* The HDR photos posted thus far suggest that the two best uses for it are 1) improved range in set shots that otherwise might be too dark (shadows, dull lighting, etc). And 2) an artistic, 'surreal', imagery. Both have their place.
* A photo that lacks composition, balance, or interest remains just that when rendered in HDR. HDR doesn't solve for a poorly composed or uninteresting photo.
* Some of the more manipulated photos become unfavorably grainy. Unless that is a desired look, seems to me that using higher MP cameras, RAW images, and lower ISO is something a few HDR photographers should adapt to.
* The use of the hyper-realism / surreal images seems to work best (have the most positive impact) when it brings out the emotional tone that the photographer sees. For instance, the painting-like quality of the people gathered around a smoky fire, or the eerie quality of the castle by the lake.
* I suspect that a lot of landscape and cityscape photography can be improved by the use of HDR, but with care to not create the surreal effects. Some of the pictures displayed here, if presented without knowledge that they were HDR, would otherwise be applauded for being great photos - because of their realistic but 'perfect' tonal range.
Anyway, that's what I've learned from following this thread. Now to go spend a few weeks playing with HDR myself. Thanks to to everyone who has contributed to this valuable thread.
I personally think HDR is great, and love it... but I prefer to use it for the surreal look. Like you, some of the pics I've seen posted that keep it toned down to look natural simply look just like a regular great photo and I also wouldn't have guessed were HDR unless told. Some of these photos don't really "need" to go through the whole HDR process because they could have simply been shot with proper composition in a single shot, then with some very basic post processing work done. The HDR process would be an unnecessary step. Processing a photo to have a natural feel in HDR is also important, but if you're still not using it to bring out hidden shadows to expand the range of the photo, and the end result still has too much hidden detail, I don't see how HDR was of any help. Just like I don't like when people overdo it, and it does become too grainy. It goes both ways. Just my opinion of course
I disagree. When I use HDR, it's on shots that I think will (a) require it because of dynamic range issues (in which case I shoot 3-5 exposures) or (b) will benefit from this type of processing for stylistic reasons (in which case pseudo-HDR usually suffices). The latter is no different than any other post-processing I might do, like desaturation, adding contrast, or what have you.
Remember, there are no right or wrong ways to process an image. If the end product looks good, then it's "right". I will not use HDR just for the sake of it; it has to suit the composition and the subject.
Once again, you're placing an arbitrary restriction on when a certain technique can or cannot be used. Curves or saturation can be used to give over-the-top effects too; but not every image needs this or it suited to it.
Yes, HDR can be used to suit its original purpose, and I do this all the time, but within that paradigm, you can still make images that look "natural". In fact, as I've argued, a well-done HDR sometimes looks MORE natural than a single exposure, since the eye has a great deal more dynamic range than any DSLR.
The grain you're seeing is often the result of poor technique. I have had VERY limited success with HDR when shooting at anything above ISO 200 on my (admittedly outdated) 10D (and even this is pushing it, though there are exceptions...see my most recent post above, which was shot at ISO 800). HDR will bring out any noise in the image.
So go ahead and use HDR for an artistic effect; I like that overdone HDR approach sometimes, and on certain subjects, it looks fantastic. But don't stifle creativity by placing arbitrary limits on what techniques should or should not be used.
I think you totally misunderstood my post Edge. I agree completely with everything you said. I'm in no way trying to say HDR should only be used in so and so manner. I was just stating my opinion that I have seen a couple images posted already, both surreal and realistc, that were either overdone too much, or not enough at all. Whether it be a photo coming out too grainy, or still a lot of hidden shadow detail that the human eye can still see in real time. It doesn't matter whether you're trying to bring out either the dynamic range of a photo, or simply going for an animated look, one could still have poor technique like you stated, and it goes both ways; ie over and under-doing it.
Of course there is always the exception of either of these two being the main purpose of the photographer anyways, and if it's someone expressing their art, no one should ever put a correct or incorrect label on that... and I was definitely not trying to do that. I was just sharing my opinion that I feel some people might be trying to hard at not overdoing it that they could mistakingly be keeping the picture still too underexposed because of hidden shadow detail present in the photo that the human eye could still distinguish in real time.
You basically nailed it when you said "Remember, there are no right or wrong ways to process an image. If the end product looks good, then it's "right". I will not use HDR just for the sake of it; it has to suit the composition and the subject." I 100% fully agree, and thats what I was hinting at, nothing more. That some of these pictures seemed to be processed using HDR just for the sake of using it when it isn't really "needed". Definitely not trying to place restriction of any sort.
Of course there is always the exception of either of these two being the main purpose of the photographer anyways, and if it's someone expressing their art, no one should ever put a correct or incorrect label on that... and I was definitely not trying to do that. I was just sharing my opinion that I feel some people might be trying to hard at not overdoing it that they could mistakingly be keeping the picture still too underexposed because of hidden shadow detail present in the photo that the human eye could still distinguish in real time.
You basically nailed it when you said "Remember, there are no right or wrong ways to process an image. If the end product looks good, then it's "right". I will not use HDR just for the sake of it; it has to suit the composition and the subject." I 100% fully agree, and thats what I was hinting at, nothing more. That some of these pictures seemed to be processed using HDR just for the sake of using it when it isn't really "needed". Definitely not trying to place restriction of any sort.
Answers on a postcard please?
Water fountain? in Kings Park, Stirling.
Stirling Castle is almost visible in the background.
Water fountain? in Kings Park, Stirling.
Stirling Castle is almost visible in the background.
I would agree that my image (post 653) has ended up a bit too grainy. Unfortunately, I am shooting with a Fuji S7000 which won't do bracketed exposures with RAW files - it can produce single RAWs but you have to use JPEG for bracketed exposures.
As soon as I can afford a DSLR though.....
Here is a picture I took in Atlanta over spring break.
I am making a HDR portfolio for my Photography class at high school. This is probably my best one so far. Its from one RAW.
I am making a HDR portfolio for my Photography class at high school. This is probably my best one so far. Its from one RAW.
I loaded CHDK on my A720IS today, first thing I did was enabled AEB
Here's what I came up with:
Here's what I came up with:
HDR doesn't really work with one jpeg. What you have there is just a glowing tree.
I don't know how to put this politely, but you overdid the effect. Like really overdid it.
I've noticed a number of the HDR images shared here have this 'glowing penumbra' effect. What's the cause - and how to avoid?
I don't like the composition of this image. I took it a week ago and forgot what I was thinking when I took it. I thought there was a rock in the background and that this was a picture of a tree. When I started processing it, I noticed the wolves. I was attempting to bring out detail while not overcooking. After HDR processing, I desaturated the green a bit.
Single RAW, handheld, 50mm, f3.5, 1/180, ISO 100
Single RAW, handheld, 50mm, f3.5, 1/180, ISO 100
the glowing tree dose look kinda nifty though
i thought had raw versions of the pics but maybe not