Whats this HDR then

JRH

Messages
101
Name
Josh Howard
Edit My Images
Yes
Anyone enlighten me on what this HDR means.

Cheers :D
 
I looked on wikipedia but i find it so hard to understand haha.
Just thought someone could explain it more simple than that.
 
Its when you take multiple exposures of the same shot over a range of fstops and blend them together to create a picture that has a full range in the shadows, midtones and the highlights. Mostly it looks unnatural but sometimes can look amazing if done well.

have a look on flickr at the HDR groups
 
Right i see, cheers :D
 
Basic - Its were you get several exposures and put them together, one under exposed and one over, plus correct exposed one.

EDIT: Stop being first! ^^ :lol:
 
Actually I will try to make it simpler.

You take (usually) 5 exposures of the same shot.

1. 2 stops underexposed
2. 1 stop underexposed
3. Correctly exposed
4. 1 stop over exposed
5. 2 stops over exposed

Now you load them into a programme that can process HDR's such as Photomatix Pro or photoshop cs3 or 4.

What the program does is blend all the images together and put them through a process called "tone mapping" This then creates an image that has a higher dynamic range than you are used to seeing and one that is not present naturally in the photo thus creating that rather unnatural look.

It can however be used subtly to enhance an image, and IMO looks best when you cant tell an image is an HDR....
 
i kind of get it, cheers fellas :)
 
Take it you dont like HDR then?

Most people don't like it as it tends to look fake, if it's done right though it can look good.

Here's an example of when it's being used properly.
3258017647_94c17f1f5d.jpg


And now, not so proper..

2084386701_396fd06ccc.jpg
 
Most people don't like it as it tends to look fake, if it's done right though it can look good.

I know why people don't like it, but when has something fake look odd in a photo, anything done in photo shop is fake. You cant make a rubbish photo to good with HDR but its makes a good photo to amazing with HDR. Like the picture you have said was a rubbish HDR, its a guy sleeping nothing good about it, where as the one you said good is a decent image to start with.
 
Am I too late for
smileyvault-popcorn.gif
?

-H
 
I know why people don't like it, but when has something fake look odd in a photo, anything done in photo shop is fake. You cant make a rubbish photo to good with HDR but its makes a good photo to amazing with HDR. Like the picture you have said was a rubbish HDR, its a guy sleeping nothing good about it, where as the one you said good is a decent image to start with.

I think I have ever seen about 2 photos that have benefited from HDR. All others look weird, fake, oversaturated or would look better from good understanding of exposure or use of other exposure blending techniques. Personally if you take a good photo and use HDR, it does't make it amazing, it ruins it. Each to their own though.
 
I think I have ever seen about 2 photos that have benefited from HDR. All others look weird, fake, oversaturated or would look better from good understanding of exposure or use of other exposure blending techniques. Personally if you take a good photo and use HDR, it does't make it amazing, it ruins it. Each to their own though.

You haven't looked very hard then. ;)

I agree that most HDR work is way overcooked, but that's a problem with a lot of people's PP work whatever system is used. I use it a lot in a very subtle way. for example, this shot just looked cleaner with an HDR.
 
Personally if you take a good photo and use HDR, it does't make it amazing, it ruins it.

Maybe I shouldn't of said it like that, what I was trying to say was you cant make a poor photo good with it because you need a good photo to start with. I didnt mean every photo. :)
 
Is this, to some degree, the same as using ND graduated and/or polarizing filters?
 
Is this, to some degree, the same as using ND graduated and/or polarizing filters?

No, not really. Well, maybe a little bit...It's more a case of blending 3 or 5 or 7 etc exposures completely and then allowing the software to bring the detail out where it is needed to create the image.
 
No, not really. Well, maybe a little bit...It's more a case of blending 3 or 5 or 7 etc exposures completely and then allowing the software to bring the detail out where it is needed to create the image.

So it is then! Although, as I understand it, HDR is a lot more versatile in that it will bring out the detail all over the image, whereas using ‘on lens’ filters may only allow you to do ‘block’ areas of an image, such as separating the sky from the land, in a landscape shot.


You can do the same thing with negatives, the old boy Peterson called it ‘sandwiching’ I believe, but it's the same principle, again though I think doing it on the 'PC' is much more effective and efficient.
 
No, it's not! It's not a simple yes/no answer. ;)

Yes, it will bring out detail all over the image. Think of it like this. You take one exposure for the midtones. They'll be perfectly exposed and detailed. You take one for the highlights so they'll be visible and perfectly detailed and exposed. You take another for the shadow areas that would be underexposed in the original. They're now visible, perfectly exposed and detailed.

You then blend them together into one image with a range of colours, depth and lighting much more like how your eye sees and registers.

The problem, IMO, is when people use this to turn perfectly decent photographs into garish cartoons. Nothing wrong with overcooking if it's done with style, but LOOK AT MY LACK OF SLIDER CONTROL!!!!!! screams of the need for medication. ;)
 
Its when you take multiple exposures of the same shot over a range of fstops and blend them together to create a picture that has a full range in the shadows, midtones and the highlights. Mostly it looks unnatural but sometimes can look amazing if done well.

have a look on flickr at the HDR groups

cool!!
a bit like a slide sandwich..:D
 
Back
Top