1st attempt at HDR

HCK

HCK

Messages
784
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,

This is my first attempt at HDR, I have by no means mastered the art....I personally think it looks a bit over processed, but I guess I will learn that over time :eek:. Any flaming or critiquing welcome (well to a certain extent ;) )

HDR
http://www.pclc.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dell/1st-hdr.jpg


Original
http://www.pclc.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dell/original.JPG

Thanks.

Staff Edit : Images changed to clickable links. Pictures must not exceed current forum limits as per the rules.
Please feel free to replace this with a fresh/resized image and remove this text :)
 
I used 1 Raw file in lightroom and created a +2 and -2 copy of the original, then exported all 3 (including the original) into Photomatix, then tonemapped it and played about with the settings until I got the finished result. Boy there is so much to learn :eek:
 
I like the stone building and the grass colour. But as said above I think the sky (especially the very light blue area) is too overdone for my liking. First attempt though, so nothing to be ashamed of at all! :)
 
I prefer the original but with added PP. Haha!
its a good first attempt to be honest, and the ruins look good. The sky is a real let down.

Again, nicely taken shot though :)
 
I'd like to see the HDR version converted into a B&W as the colour of the grass and sky takes you away from the main point of interest (the old building) too much
 
I kinda like the HDR version, but the sky is a bit overcooked as others have said. There's a bit of a halo round the building too.
Not bad though for a first go. I quite like the HDR effect, although some folks hate it.
 
Gordon Scott said:
I prefer the original to be honest, which has good definition anyway. Suggest you take the +2, 0 and -2 exposures on the camera as it gives much better results. I've been doing HDR a month or so now and ma hooked!
Click to expand...

:plus1:

I think the original had good detail; no need for HDR in this case.
 
Out of curiosity, why are you calling it HDR?

The point of HDR is to allow an image to capture a higher dynamic range than is usually possible with a digital sensor, but that's not what has happened here. The dynamic range of the original photo is not very high at all. The lighting is flat and there aren't really any deep shadows or bright highlights.

All you've really done is play about with the contrast and colours.
 
StewartR said:
Out of curiosity, why are you calling it HDR?

The point of HDR is to allow an image to capture a higher dynamic range than is usually possible with a digital sensor, but that's not what has happened here. The dynamic range of the original photo is not very high at all. The lighting is flat and there aren't really any deep shadows or bright highlights.

All you've really done is play about with the contrast and colours.
Click to expand...

for me, personally, because it's easier to say and people understand the process :p
I know that the image has no where near a high dynamic range, and that technically that's not the correct term to use, and if anything I should be saying "image inspired by the processes of more heavily processed high-dynamic-range style tone mapped images"
 
HCK said:
This is my first attempt at HDR, I have by no means mastered the art....I personally think it looks a bit over processed, but I guess I will learn that over time :eek:. Any flaming or critiquing welcome (well to a certain extent ;) )
Click to expand...

No flaming or otherwise, but I'd like to understand what you were hoping to achieve by putting the image through the HDR / tone mapping process in the first instance.
 
Why did I call it HDR ? Well it was put through a process which I thought was to produce a HDR image. From what I have read on the Vanilladays website and others, an image over +/- exposed then imported into a software package that can combine the images to produce a HDR result, is this the correct term ?...maybe not but others seem to use it loosely if its not the correct definition of a HDR image.

What I did was to take 1 image and use Lightroom to +/- an image to create 3 images and then import them into a HDR program to produce the end result you see, is this HDR ? I have no idea and now seem confused about what HDR is, I guess more reading is needed :)
 
So why did you decide to process it in this way? What were you hoping to achieve?

The reason I'm asking (I'm not asking why you call it HDR - that's someone elses question) is because if it were me, I wouldn't have said the scene needed it. So I'm just wondering what your motivation was for doing it.
 
Sorry Digital I was answering the previous poster. To answer your question I liked some of the HDR images floating around the internet and thought I would give it a try, some attempts at HDR seem to improve pictures that that are quite dull in colour contrast etc.
 
Looks like the colour temp was quite cool, hence the excess cyan in the sky. Was this shot on a cold day as the sun was setting?

Personally, I'd balance the original image first to get the sky blue and then run it through your HDR software. My preference is to ditch the HDR software and do a bit of processing to up the contrast - it's a nice shot that doesn't benefit from the HDR software.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top