Even More HDR

[oldfart]

still not sure whats good & bad HDR, since nobody commented on last lot i take it there not that good but bad comments help here a few more. all taken from 1 image raw converted to tiffs -2 0 +2 exposures. Except 3rd one is from jpg. I'm still trying to develop a different syle with these.

 

[JPS]

I like them, except for the fact they are leaning to the left rather a lot. Apart from that, I kinda like the effect you've got there.

 

[spencer]

I like number 2 & 3,
but they do lean slightly!

 

[petemc]

HDR does not make an image. They all lean and have no real focal points. There doesn't seem to be any thought on composition. 1 & 2 are just too busy. The building in 3 over powers the monument. The towers in 4 get darker as you go up, which is a classic issue with tone mapping. The buildings in 5 are blue, again an issue with tone mapping. Sorry dude

 

[StewartR]

still not sure whats good & bad HDR

These are bad HDR.

I think all of these are just HDR for the sake of it. None of them are particularly attractive or interesting photos, and the HDR treatment doesn't change that. Obviously if you happen to like the garish false-colour look then these pictures are quite successful, but I'm with Pete here: that still doesn't make them interesting pictures.

Also - I would suggest that calling them HDR is misleading. #1, #2 and #3 at least look like they were taken on a dull day, so there probably isn't much dynamic range in the photos to begin with. I think good HDR means processing an image that has a wider dynamic range than can normally be captured successfully, and making a realistic-looking image out if it. Good HDR doesn't look like HDR; it looks like reality.

 

[pandabighead]

you been on the buckie again davey? thats a bit of a tilt there mate.
whats the kick off time for monday at the green?

 

[oldfart]

cheers for comments.

on issue of slightly going left (cough) subjects are on a hill & you are on different hill but i could have straightned but photo will be contours of way your looking straight on.

1 & 2 were taken on sunny but cloudy days they were just city shots. hills in background can only be seen when its sunny.

number 3 is a bugger to get away from Glasgow City Chambers as its one of most dominating buildings in George Square. I haven't got a wide enough lens to do it justice. I've actually beside another monument its furthest back you can go, if you look straight on.

4 & 5 were original shot as silhouettes but the buildings are a bluey grey, i didnt design em

I think all of these are just HDR for the sake of it

em yes, it called practice & trying different techniques. I'm sure Petes early works were not all as spectacular as the ones he exhibits now. I got canon 400d about 3-4 months ago so still practice camera technique as some of shots taken were, just practice shots. Your comments are welcome but i'm not trying to mislead anyone.

HDR is subjective even Petes work has been critised in some circles as not true HDR (the fools) not a view i share.


pandabighead yuk

 

[Yv]

OK, I shall try and comment in the vein the shots were processed, as practice, and ignoring thae fact that whilst it may have been the perspective, they do need straightning as the viewer doesnt know about the hills.

#1 - Colour balance looks about right although maybe the greens need bringing down a little bit, and the details seem clear enough on the small image.

#2 - This I like, the old fashioned roofs against the modern tower blocks and further on into the rugged hillside is cool, but would like to have seen a bit more sky. The conversion looks ok, not too heavy.

#3 - great subject but the reds and greens are too saturated.

#4 and #5 - sorry, conversion has really not worked on those, too many strangely over bright areas.

However, dont be disheartened, its is all about practice, and learning what shots work and what don't. Its also worth remembering that HDR can't solve everything, sometime other techniques will work better, and sometimes you need to further adjust after the HDR treatment [such as #3] This is just my opinion, but dramatic HDR works very well for grand architecture [as we see in Petes Liverpool stuff] but does take a lot of practice, but more subtle appilcation can work across a range of images.

Well done for having a go, and keep posting. [and stay off the local produce ]

 

[spencer]

However, dont be disheartened, its is all about practice, and learning what shots work and what don't. Its also worth remembering that HDR can't solve everything, sometime other techniques will work better, and sometimes you need to further adjust after the HDR treatment [such as #3] This is just my opinion, but dramatic HDR works very well for grand architecture [as we see in Petes Liverpool stuff] but does take a lot of practice, but more subtle appilcation can work across a range of images.

Well done for having a go, and keep posting. [and stay off the local produce ]

I,m also suffering from the inabillity to take decent HDR images at the mo!

Perhaps we could have our own forum!

Anyway as Ladylens says "keep posting & practising"

Spence

 

[petemc]

I'm sure Petes early works were not all as spectacular as the ones he exhibits now.

My original early days standard photos were terrible. Flower macros, random shots of totally pointless things like a drop of water. As you can see. It was about 2-3 years after getting a camera that I found HDR so I already had some of the basics covered. Composition, processing, etc. So my first HDR's (at the bottom of the page), weren't too bad imho.

HDR is subjective even Petes work has been critised in some circles as not true HDR (the fools) not a view i share.

Strictly speaking, some people say HDR is only 32bit. Every "HDR" image you see is in fact just a tone mapped image because your display doesn't have a high enough contrast ratio to display a 32bit HDR image. You compress it down to an 8bit image so its not really a high dynamic range as the dynamic range is compressed. Its just a buzz word for an effect at the moment.

 

[Yv]

Serious question then...what exactly is tone mapping doing? I mean I can see the effect its having on screen and make a judgement over whether its working or not, but what is the actual technicalities behind it, and can you tone map a normal image, indeed, would you want/need to and how?


Edit: I am asking because for some people, knowing what is happening actually helps them control the event....for instance, when I was learning to drive, after about 3 lessons, my dad sat me down with a Haynes manual and showed me a clutch and gearbox and what was going on - after that it was much easier to operate the clutch smoothly and effectively because I knew what pressing that pedal was doing.

 

[Susane]

Serious question then...what exactly is tone mapping doing? I mean I can see the effect its having on screen and make a judgement over whether its working or not, but what is the actual technicalities behind it, and can you tone map a normal image, indeed, would you want/need to and how?


Edit: I am asking because for some people, knowing what is happening actually helps them control the event....for instance, when I was learning to drive, after about 3 lessons, my dad sat me down with a Haynes manual and showed me a clutch and gearbox and what was going on - after that it was much easier to operate the clutch smoothly and effectively because I knew what pressing that pedal was doing.

I want to know this one too.

 

[petemc]

Serious question then...what exactly is tone mapping doing? I mean I can see the effect its having on screen and make a judgement over whether its working or not, but what is the actual technicalities behind it, and can you tone map a normal image, indeed, would you want/need to and how?

Short answer is compressing up to 4,294,967,296 bits of data down to around 256. This will all be covered in my new guide because I feel that people are getting things slightly wrong. So what you're doing when you tone map is decide how that data is compressed.

 

[Yv]

Short answer is compressing up to 4,294,967,296 bits of data down to around 256. This will all be covered in my new guide because I feel that people are getting things slightly wrong. So what you're doing when you tone map is decide how that data is compressed.

Aha! So, when you generate the HDR and the image is very 'heavy', sort of dense IYKWIM, the tone mapping removes a shedload of that data, and leave behind enough for a pleasing single image from the 3 originals, and then the controls allow your input into which bits of data remain, and which get discarded.... ok, thanks Pete, got it

 

[petemc]

Aha! So, when you generate the HDR and the image is very 'heavy', sort of dense IYKWIM, the tone mapping removes a shedload of that data, and leave behind enough for a pleasing single image from the 3 originals, and then the controls allow your input into which bits of data remain, and which get discarded.... ok, thanks Pete, got it

Basically yeah. Its the same with film. Film, from my understanding, has a higher dynamic range than paper. So you get perfectionists in the darkroom manually producing their prints because they want to compress that data correctly onto the paper. I think its the same in principle. Paper only has a contrast ratio of about 250:1. Its pretty darn low.

 

[oldfart]

My original early days standard photos were terrible

i looked at your early work, some the of subjects i've looked at in similar way & photographed roughly the same, i suppose most beginners do the same A new guide would be great but i have read quit a few & tried different techniques with a few images just basically to get the feel for HDR. would be interested in what settings in photomax you usually use

However, dont be disheartened, its is all about practice, and learning what shots work and what don't.

i'm not disheartned Ladylens i did realise when i posted HDR even good HDR is not to everyones taste.

Lady Lens & spencer , ps quick way to HDR (look) in lightroom. you still need to tweek a little to get right.

Recovery: 100
Fill Light: 100
Blacks: 30
Contrast: 30
Clarity: 60
Saturation: -10
Sharpening Amount: 50

 

[Witch]

I looked at the first three and then gave up on the rest I'm afraid as the wonky horizons left me feeling seasick! You have straight vertical edges in nearly all those shots - and as none of the buildings featured seem to be in Pisa I'm afraid that level of "lean" can't be excused! Use those straight edges in your processing to line things up!

As for the HDR - well it's one of those sunjects that's often hard to get a common opinion on isn't it. If what you were going for was a "painted" effect, rather than an enhanced photo - then congratulations, you've got it bang on. If however you were looking to simply bring out the full depth of tones in the images then I'm afraid you've overcooked it.

 

[oldfart]

Pisa I'm afraid that level of "lean" can't be excused!

no there on a hill & so was i has already been explained. Scopace is good for sea sickness

 

[Ratty]

HDR does not make an image.

What a novel concept.

 

[petemc]

What a novel concept.

Go on...

 

[benneh]

Lady Lens & spencer , ps quick way to HDR (look) in lightroom. you still need to tweek a little to get right.

Recovery: 100
Fill Light: 100
Blacks: 30
Contrast: 30
Clarity: 60
Saturation: -10
Sharpening Amount: 50

I've got to post to say that I would advise against that scary use of fill and recovery. It will just lead to a noisy noisy image, and wont look anything like an image which has been blended to represent a higher dynamic range.

As for the original images: They aren't really my thing, but hey, keep trying . It can only get better (for all of us).