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
Agreed - fantastic shot. I'll be trying to trial a little HDR myself over the holidays...
I like them all, but I think the way the clouds reflect perfectly and make it look like the building in the final shot is transparent is particularly interesting.
Wow - love the pictures so far.
Just one quick question: is an SLR camera a must for this? Or would a slightly more compact digital camera be able to do something simliar (although presumably with slightly less quality).
Thanks alot
Just one quick question: is an SLR camera a must for this? Or would a slightly more compact digital camera be able to do something simliar (although presumably with slightly less quality).
Thanks alot
Why? Why should digital photography be limited by technological constraints of the past? Should we also shoot only in black and white, since that is what first cameras did? Why shouldn't we draw the line back there, as opposed to color-pictures in darkrooms?
As long as you can adjust the shutter speed to get at least a full stop or two above and below the proper exposure you should be able to do this. The basic principle here is that it merges all the photos together which pull out a lot more range of colors and details. Give it a shot and see if you like it, that's the best bet.
No - any camera that allows you to manually adjust the shutter speed, or that allows you to employ exposure bracketing. BUT, you absolutely need a tripod, and most important, you need software that will allow you to process the photos. I use Photomatix Pro or Photoshop CS3.
Enough is enough...stop your yapping!
I think that everyone should stop talking, and post pictures.(discussing a certain photo that is posted is acceptable of course, as well as questions)
Read the title of this thread - "Post your HDR". Its not "Lets discuss HDR".
No more debating, if you dont like HDR or have different opinions, stay the heck out of this thread...simple.
Now, please, some one start posting more HDRs...
I think that everyone should stop talking, and post pictures.(discussing a certain photo that is posted is acceptable of course, as well as questions)
Read the title of this thread - "Post your HDR". Its not "Lets discuss HDR".
No more debating, if you dont like HDR or have different opinions, stay the heck out of this thread...simple.
Now, please, some one start posting more HDRs...
Great shot, i love how you gave it a longer shutter time and the water underneath the ice is blurred, it looks great.
One of mine. Same thing, i didnt over do it on the tone mapping. I liked how it gave the made the snow a little whiter, and the sun stand out a little more than the original.
(larger) http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2200/2117932803_fb0c4bc3bf_b.jpg
and the original:
One of mine. Same thing, i didnt over do it on the tone mapping. I liked how it gave the made the snow a little whiter, and the sun stand out a little more than the original.
(larger) http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2200/2117932803_fb0c4bc3bf_b.jpg
and the original:
Attachments
About any. As I said, this isnt a thread about HDR discussion, it is clearly titled and created to post HDR images.
I think it's okay to discuss different methods for HDR.
Anyway, I actually kind of enjoyed the arguing in this thread, if only because it highlights the silliness of the "purists" who regard photography as a rote science instead of an art form, and regard computing in photography as unethical.
Anyway, I actually kind of enjoyed the arguing in this thread, if only because it highlights the silliness of the "purists" who regard photography as a rote science instead of an art form, and regard computing in photography as unethical.
I spose. I think if there is to be a discussion, maybe create a thread to discuss HDR. I have heard this discussion many times before and am tired of it, so I was happy when this thread was created just to post the HDR photos. I dont want to see pointless arguing.
IOW, it is fine to discuss it, I just dont think this should be the place for it.
I get the strange feeling that was directed at me.
Overall in this thread, I feel remarkably beat-up. Everyone is going on and on about how photography is art, art can be anythingbut some of these HDRs don't look like photography anymore. They look like a painting. Still art, but they're straying from the trueness of photography into the minds playscape. Yes, that's a relatively purist view, but I'd appreciate some respect and courtesy even if you disagree with me.
Perhaps my opinions derive from what I photograph: sports, landscapes, and some flowers. I see photography as a way to recreate and share something I viewednot create something new. The science of photography is in recreating that in the exact way you want toeven if it isn't exactly as it appears, the best technical photographer gets exactly what he wants out of his equipment. He doesn't then go back home and make corrections. For me, the art of photography is in the composition: the lighting, the angles, when, where, what's the underlying meaning, et. al.; not the post-production. Post production is merely a tool to correct for my failings as a technical photographer. Others, of course, have a completely different view. That's fine, so long as they appropriately describe their work (i.e. don't call it photography after you've erased a subject or two, put in a new one; call it a derivative work.)
Some of the HDRs above are merely more accurate representations of what the eye sees; others, however, (I'll borrow this
"look like a nuke went off". Who draws the line between which is OK and which isn't? The viewer. I'll have one line; you'll have another, and there will be multitudes of other variations. As a community we must agree to disagree.OK, unless further provoked I'll shut up now.
Sorry about that. I meant nothing personal.
There is "reason" behind your reason, so you make sense and I can respect that. What doesn't make sense are some of the reactions I've gotten from random people in the past regarding some of my HDRs. It usually goes something like this paraphrasal: "Oh noes!!111 U uzd teh fotoshop!!111 U looze!!111" I've seen that line of reasoning enough times anyway.
What cracks me up is how, there have been two or three times (on boards other than Macrumors) where I posted an HDR straight out of Photomatix, and hadn't even performed any post-Photomatix adjustments. And the response I got was "Uh, could you not Photoshop your pics so much..." or some such similar line of nonsense. Beware anyone who employs the word "Photoshop" as some kind of generalized verb. It is safe at assume they are totally uninformed about digital photography methods, and thus aren't worth paying attention to.
I can see your line of reasoning though since you like to concentrate on sports and so forth. But I think you should give HDR a go for your flowers and landscapes! It can be used for both practical and artistic uses. I think you would find it quite useful for practical enhancements on, say the occasional flower or landscape shots.
I meant nothing personal. There is "reason" behind your reason, so you make sense and I can respect that. What doesn't make sense are some of the reactions I've gotten from random people in the past regarding some of my HDRs. It usually goes something like this paraphrasal: "Oh noes!!111 U uzd teh fotoshop!!111 U looze!!111" I've seen that line of reasoning enough times anyway.
What cracks me up is how, there have been two or three times (on boards other than Macrumors) where I posted an HDR straight out of Photomatix, and hadn't even performed any post-Photomatix adjustments. And the response I got was "Uh, could you not Photoshop your pics so much..." or some such similar line of nonsense. Beware anyone who employs the word "Photoshop" as some kind of generalized verb. It is safe at assume they are totally uninformed about digital photography methods, and thus aren't worth paying attention to.
I can see your line of reasoning though since you like to concentrate on sports and so forth. But I think you should give HDR a go for your flowers and landscapes! It can be used for both practical and artistic uses. I think you would find it quite useful for practical enhancements on, say the occasional flower or landscape shots.
Sorry about that.
There is "reason" behind your reason, so you make sense and I can respect that. What doesn't make sense are some of the reactions I've gotten from random people in the past regarding some of my HDRs. It usually goes something like this paraphrasal: "Oh noes!!111 U uzd teh fotoshop!!111 U looze!!111" I've seen that line of reasoning enough times anyway.
What cracks me up is how, there have been two or three times (on boards other than Macrumors) where I posted an HDR straight out of Photomatix, and hadn't even performed any post-Photomatix adjustments. And the response I got was "Uh, could you not Photoshop your pics so much..." or some such similar line of nonsense. Beware anyone who employs the word "Photoshop" as some kind of generalized verb. It is safe at assume they are totally uninformed about digital photography methods, and thus aren't worth paying attention to.
I can see your line of reasoning though since you like to concentrate on sports and so forth. But I think you should give HDR a go for your flowers and landscapes! It can be used for both practical and artistic uses. I think you would find it quite useful for practical enhancements on, say the occasional flower or landscape shots.
But you highlight your condescending attitude with such a statement, lol. Is Man Ray art, is Ansel Adams art, are they photography? Yes to both answers, just depends on what you like. I prefer HDR used to give a sense of imagery that better approximates what the human eye 'sees' in a scene (even better sometimes if you can get greater DR than the human eye can perceive). This is something the human eye can do, which neither film or digitally images are presently capable of doing...will be moot question, I think, in a decade or two.
I don't care for the 'surrealistic' imagery of valdore's initial group of HDR processed images. Does mean that are terrible (though some people who want only images that look as though how the human eye sees it, will think they look terrible), just one of preferences. I prefer the type of imagery Ansel Adams captured. I hate Ken Rockwell's excessively over-amped contrasty visually 'popping' images...go take a look as these scenes with your eyes, and you know the colors are more subdued. Ken R is as too Pam Anderson, as Ansel Adams is to Jessica Alba
.What i find more amusing about all this discussion of examples posted is that HDR is reduced DR as viewed off of the internet on a typical computer screen...you are missing a lot of detail right there, so you aren't really seeing the benefits here, and everyone is commenting like they can see that full range, lol. It ain't so!
BTW, as to CGI, uh hello, all digital images are CGI...they are digital, Do'h. Meaning what is essentially a computer in the form of the imagine processing engine (assuming you are not capturing raw data directly out off the sensor, which some high-end camcorders allow) it constructing a digital image...it's computer generated to look as closely approximate to what your eye sees. So it's merely how those bits have been represented, as accurate representations of what the human eye can see, or some exaggeration or compromise of this. Why do you think the tilt/shift lenses are so popular? Because they help correct for limitations in what the lens can produce, such that it better approximates what you see with your eyes.
Some people love the surrealistic imagery, some don't. if you post pictures, expect people to weigh in with their likes or dislikes as to that particular HDR image. I like some of them, I don't care for others, it's not about being one "right" way.
Are there any guides on how many stops to bracket for an HDR? If I am doing 3 shots, would I do -1,0,+1 or -2,0,+2 etc.
Generally 3-5 is enough. Like Valdore does, you can also do a single image HDR, usually shot in RAW because it contains more info and detail. The more shots you have with different exposures, the more detail you get from each of those different light values (at least that is my understanding?)
When using autobracketing, it takes shots in -2, 0, +2
When using autobracketing, it takes shots in -2, 0, +2
Are there any guides on how many stops to bracket for an HDR? If I am doing 3 shots, would I do -1,0,+1 or -2,0,+2 etc.
-2 0 +2
Cool, thanks for the fast replies I'll be upgrading to Digital this week for my birthday, once I saw how awesome the results you guys got, I figured I had to try it. There are some great shots here, the one that especially grabs my attention is AndrewMorrell's exterior shot of the building... Sweet...
I'll be upgrading to Digital this week for my birthday, once I saw how awesome the results you guys got, I figured I had to try it. There are some great shots here, the one that especially grabs my attention is AndrewMorrell's exterior shot of the building... Sweet... here are some of my HDR photos... the exterior photos are a 3-shot composite taken with bracketing at 3 stops, the interior shot taken at 1 stop intervals combining 7 shots:
Why can't photography be seen as the medium rather than the subject? Is the motion picture no longer a motion picture because they used chromakey? Chromakey, lumakey, HDR, dodge, burn; these are all tools used by the artist to make their creation.
Look at any of the great photographers from before the digital era. Everything you see of their work is heavily post processed. It was a lot more work in the old days to do it in the darkroom, but it was done all the time. By your standard, the photographer is done when the negative is created. Do a quick print and call it a day.
Anytime it actually worked like that, you probably never learned the name of the photographer because the photographs were nothing special. The ones worthy of art galleries and exhibitions are nearly always very processed.
A great camera operator presses a button and a decent image comes out. A great photographer makes a great image in his mind, presses a button, then processes the hell out of it to make it match what he saw in his mind.
Amazing!
WOW! These are absolutely brilliant! I especially like the piano and the windy looking one with the light post in the back. The basket ball court is also very well done!
Cheers, and keep up the good work!
WOW! These are absolutely brilliant! I especially like the piano and the windy looking one with the light post in the back. The basket ball court is also very well done!
Cheers, and keep up the good work!