HDR or not

natjag

natjag

Messages
2,498
Name
Nathan Hulse
Edit My Images
Yes
Here is one photo, three times. The first is the original as it happened. To bright one side, a bit too dark elsewhere. Grad filters wouldn't really solve the problem as highlights etc not all in one area. So a classic contender perhaps for HDR.
The second shot is my first HDR attempt. I never purchased the software, as I've since moved to mac.
The third shot is by adjusting highlights and shadows in aperture. I think this gives a good result with high range scenes. No other adjustments (slight rotation for even horizon). What does anyone else think?

NJHA9.jpg

Original

quey_0_1_2.JPG

photomatix HDR

NJHA8.jpg

Aperture conversion
 
Hi Natjag,

No.3 looks best of course. But there's no telling how it would compare to an HDR image unless you see 'm side-by-side.

You could try Photomatix (http://www.hdrsoft.com/).

Congratulations on being a switcher!
You now probably chide yourself for not switching years ago . . .

Have fun!
 
The middle shot was infact converted/adjusted, on my pc with the photomatix software (trial version, hence the watermarks still on the image).
 
Definately #3.

The photomatix image just looks too soft with not enough contrast, whereas the aperture image ticks all the boxes for me :)
 
i know nothing about computer editing so i cant comment on that side but the 3rd picture definetly looks the best
 
#3 all the way
I don't know Photomatix, but CS3 does need a fair bit of "tweaking" (techie term) to get decent results
I wonder if more tweaking would give a better result?

btw did you take 3 shots for the HDR or just 3 variants of the original?
 
:thinking: hmm..sorry, #3 just looks very flat to me [try covering opera house and looking at it to see what I mean]. The HDR might have worked in more experienced hands, but even then it would be a struggle, for a good HDR, you need good exposure, not too many detail-less blacks or blown whites [or 3 bracketted shots]. TBH, I like the first, even with the too light RHS, I think I would be tempted to selectively tone that area down, with a big feather so it blends nicely, and leave it at that. Alternatively, try a contrast masking edit and see if that will improve things :shrug:

just my 2p's worth mind ;)
 
Thanks all.
These images are only adjusted to bring all the levels with in an acceptable range. Most HDR image (that I read of) usual involve some other form of PP to make it more acceptable.

Ladylens: thanks for your suggestions. I don't have PS in any form since I've moved to Mac, I can't find the copy I did have on my pc.
I'm not sure if the middle image is soft due to the trail version of photomatix or other reason.

While this was and is an interesting experiment for me (I was bored today), HDR does really need multiple bracketed exposures to work (as ladylens mentions), which I didn't have here. I'm sure if I did, the results would be much different. when I get PS back on my mac I'll have a go at selective adjustments. Luckily for my main work I only have to caption, so lack of PS isn't an immediate issue for me.

Also I see exactly what Ladylens means about covering the blownout area. because the rest of the image has a bit more punch to it that the others miss.
 
The main problem here is that you have an area of photo in flat shaded light, and an area in contrasty directional light, with different colour temperatures - blue & orange.

No HDR process is ever going to be able to add that directional light to the flat area - for me this is where a lot of HDR photos go wrong - trying to make the most of a photo that can't be rescued, rather the best of an already good one.
 
I think that both aperture and photomatix could produce something more from that shot.

The aperture version shows there is enough detail in that shot to put the tones near enough where you want them. :)
 
Both HDR versions are showing that grey veil effect so typical of overcooked HDR.

This is a very quick job in Photomatix fudging three tiffs from your original jpeg.

NJHA9-light_-dark_tonemapped.jpg


No other processing except adjusted colour balance.
 
I personally dont like any of the edits but I do think that photomatix could get a reasonable version if you tweaked the settings a little bit. The photomatix hdr you did was completely overcooked, the aperture one was less overcooked but killed the contrast.

CT's version is much better as a botch job, with the original files it would look the best as you could recover the highlights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top