Post your Realistic 'HDR'

P

petemc

Messages
9,504
Name
Pete
Edit My Images
No
I'm bored so I figured I'd go pick a fight ;) You get a lot of control when tone mapping from a 32bit image and I still believe you can create stunning images that don't look OTT. Remember that these images aren't HDR but they're are tone mapped. There are a lot of people out there who hate "HDR" so I figure this is for them. If you have any that look normal, and its so easy to do normal, post away :)

img_9951-edit.jpg


img_9235_4_3.jpg


img_9187-edit_6-edit_5-edit2.jpg


img_4674_5_6.jpg


IMG_4689_90_91.jpg


IMG_4167_9_8-2.jpg


IMG_351231_2_3.jpg


CRW_0410-42_0_1.jpg


hdr-s2000-00.jpg
 
here's a tonemapped image of Crewe Hall, shot a wedding there last September, always like to include one of the venue

IMG_0292_3_4_tonemapped.jpg
[/IMG]
 
errr.

Am I missing something here?

The only shots on this thread so far that don't SCREAM hdr iare Dave's one of Crewe Hall and the first one of Petes. The rest are so obviously HDR it's untrue.


Some of my more subtle jobs.....

DSC_5553.jpg


Rhossili805warmer1.jpg


dorsethdr21.jpg


All blends of 3+ exposures to bring out some detail in the shadows that wasn't there and boost the saturation. I tend to use the PS merge to HD tool rather than Photomatix.
 
(y) Not sure if this comes as a surprise or what, but here are a few of my 'trying not to be obvious' tone mapped shots :LOL:.









 
Gandhi said:
errr.

Am I missing something here?

The only shots on this thread so far that don't SCREAM hdr iare Dave's one of Crewe Hall and the first one of Petes. The rest are so obviously HDR it's untrue.
Click to expand...

I agree ... not that I don't adore them all, but I do think Gandhi is right.
 
Gandhi said:
errr.

Am I missing something here?

The only shots on this thread so far that don't SCREAM hdr iare Dave's one of Crewe Hall and the first one of Petes. The rest are so obviously HDR it's untrue.
Click to expand...

Just the first? Why is that? Can you see the "hdr" because I said they were HDR or do you really think they're "hdr"? My sunset reflection doesn't, nor does the interior of the cathedral, or the buildings reflected in the water or the night time one. They certain don't SCREAM "omg hdr run for the cliche!" :) All IMHO naturally. I would say that oldfart's definitely does. But I personally don't feel the ones I posted scream it.

img_1049-edit.jpg


If they scream it, that one must be a 2,000 piece choir shouting at god for creating hdr in the first place :p
 
ichabod crane said:
whats the difference between tone mapping and HDR then?
Click to expand...

HDR is all about merging multiple exposures together to create a 32bit image with a higher contrast ratio than a normal 8bit jpg. Tone mapping is the process by which you compress the 32bit HDR down to 8bit so the data is usable.
 


I like the texture you can get on clouds, load of the posts on this thread show this.

for me, I don't like it when, as well as detail being brought back in the shadows, they are also lightened, I just don't think it looks believable.
 
does it matter if they're true HDR or not? it could be called curly wurly, if the technique is too overcooked and makes them look carp they're carp.

I feel sometimes HDR is used to embelish a very dull picture and that's fine if the technique was used occassionally, but it's not. It's a bit like having a thing for blondes then going to liverpool (just trying to keep it on topic) and declaring you're in heaven...but remove the hair and 99% are ugly, so the appeal is only short term.
 
Jo .. I have checked out your web site .. your images are stunning.
You certainly have the mastery over this media.
Thanks for sharing.
 
walls said:
does it matter if they're true HDR or not? it could be called curly wurly, if the technique is too overcooked and makes them look carp they're carp.
Click to expand...

Thats not the issue. The issue is proving you can use the technique to produce photos that aren't your obvious hdr cliche to hopefully open some peoples eyes who think its just a bad cliche.
 
petemc said:
HDR is all about merging multiple exposures together to create a 32bit image with a higher contrast ratio than a normal 8bit jpg. Tone mapping is the process by which you compress the 32bit HDR down to 8bit so the data is usable.
Click to expand...

So for tone mapping would you require a HDR image to start with then? may well be a stupid question. Ive never been overly impressed with HDR as allot can just look over done but when done correctly they can really bring an image to life.
 
ichabod crane said:
So for tone mapping would you require a HDR image to start with then? may well be a stupid question. Ive never been overly impressed with HDR as allot can just look over done but when done correctly they can really bring an image to life.
Click to expand...

Yup. You generate the HDR, then tone map so you have something to show people. A lot can look overdone. A lot of b&w's can look flat and lifeless. Theres a lot more toys in Photoshop than in Photomatix to destroy an image, but annoyingly 'HDR' is a current buzzword.
 
petemc said:
Yup. You generate the HDR, then tone map so you have something to show people. A lot can look overdone. A lot of b&w's can look flat and lifeless. Theres a lot more toys in Photoshop than in Photomatix to destroy an image, but annoyingly 'HDR' is a current buzzword.
Click to expand...

In that case i guess you can do it all in photoshop? and dont need something like photomatrix. Your second example i think is spot on in my interests anyway the detail in the elevation is beautiful like what you would get from an autoCAD drawing.
 
Here is my first attempt at HDR and I was going for realistic. It was very cold and frosty and the light was changing really quickly so I have to move fast. 7 shots in all but chose 4 to HDR.

Any tips?

FrostymorningHDR.jpg
 
petemc said:
Thats not the issue. The issue is proving you can use the technique to produce photos that aren't your obvious hdr cliche to hopefully open some peoples eyes who think its just a bad cliche.
Click to expand...


which is the point, if the technique is used to enhance a scene then I don't think even critics of HDR have a problem with it. If it's done for it's own sake then it turns into an argument. Whether it's tone mapping, adjusting levels, removing red eye in your underpants, if it's done subtly nobody has an issue with it. Perhaps what it boils down to is your perception of subtle or the point at which overkill is reached, is not a common view :D

not that I don't like HDR, tried it, would rather not have gone to the hassle..appreciate others that can do it well.
 
To add to this... the reason why I HDR'd this shot (as if I need a reason) is because the sun was burning out all of the subtle details in the frosty field.

When exposing for the field, there was no detail at all in the sky and no colour, when exposing for the sky the hedge and shed was completely black.

HDR was a tool I chose to use in order to expand the (limited) exposure bandwidth of a digital sensor. Without it there was no photograph.
 
3 shot hdr.
_MG_44833_11_22%20copy.jpg


3 shot hdr with kit lens.
Fallen%20in%20the%20mist%20hdr.jpg


4 shot hdr.
river%20also%20hdr4_1_2_3%20copy2.jpg


5 shot hdr.
twisted%20tree%20a5_1_2_3_4%20copy%202.jpg


Sorry about the borders.
Ken.
 
walls said:
which is the point, if the technique is used to enhance a scene then I don't think even critics of HDR have a problem with it. If it's done for it's own sake then it turns into an argument. Whether it's tone mapping, adjusting levels, removing red eye in your underpants, if it's done subtly nobody has an issue with it. Perhaps what it boils down to is your perception of subtle or the point at which overkill is reached, is not a common view :D
Click to expand...

Exactly. A lot of people dislike "HDR" because they've only maybe seen one side. But as this thread is proving, especially with KenCo1964 and Jo's results is that the technique can produce some really fantastic normal looking photos.
 
I would say that oldfart's definitely does.
Click to expand...

Thanks Pete i'll take it as compliment. only one small part is actually tonemapped.original image below.

the sky it was burned. only tonemapped part was the glass & wall, if you look at refection its slightly different. saturation increased, odd dodge and crop


2221710906_8af22df3dc.jpg
 
It was the burnt in sky, and the light and dark patches on the building that stood out. It happens a lot with Photomatix. You get that odd effect. Some like it, some don't.
 
Stunning shots Ken,

I love the way the landscape is partially in shade in 3 of them.

Just out of interest, do you process all of your landscapes like this, or just this type of shot (part shaded).
 
Seaboarder said:
Ken .. those images are exceptional.
Click to expand...
Thanks mate.

paulpierce said:
Just out of interest, do you process all of your landscapes like this, or just this type of shot (part shaded).
Click to expand...
I don't hdr all landscape shots if that's what you mean but, I do process each shot (landscape or not) in cs3 pretty much the same way....just differing the opacity on each layer.
Ken.
 
_mg_6552_HDR.jpg
 
KenCo1964 said:
I don't hdr all landscape shots if that's what you mean but, I do process each shot (landscape or not) in cs3 pretty much the same way....just differing the opacity on each layer.
Ken.
Click to expand...

Ah, so you do your hdr's manually in photoshop without the tone mapping you would do in photomatix?
 
paulpierce said:
Ah, so you do your hdr's manually in photoshop without the tone mapping you would do in photomatix?
Click to expand...

No sorry, I use Photomatix for all my hdr. I've never managed to achieve similar results with cs2/3....So I stick with what I know now.
 
ok, im a total beginner, i just love the way the water looks in those pics, i have a few waterfall shots, i have photoshop cs3, how do i got about makin water look so silky
 
:boxer:.....

*preaching photo ethics is punishable by 40 lashes from a shutter release cable at this time*

:LOL:
 
Seaboarder said:
Jo .. I have checked out your web site .. your images are stunning.
You certainly have the mastery over this media.
Thanks for sharing.
Click to expand...

Wow thank you!

petemc said:
Exactly. A lot of people dislike "HDR" because they've only maybe seen one side. But as this thread is proving, especially with KenCo1964 and Jo's results is that the technique can produce some really fantastic normal looking photos.
Click to expand...

Pete, thank you it means a lot to me to have compliments from you ;)

I'll be honest I rarely say that any of my shots have had HDR treatment or been tone mapped unless I'm asked directly. This is because I find the response it so much different when I do.. or did should I say. I'd rather people like or loath my shots because they appeal or not to their eye, not the process used to create it. And I admit when I first saw HDR and tone mapping I wasn't a fan myself. It was only after seeing some of Pete's that I changed my mind. I can't help but think I passed so many good shots over myself when I was hdr phobic ... does that make sense? :thinking:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top