Anyone use HDR tehnique

[vanjog]

Hello

I want to knowm how is possibly more about HDR

Thanks for replays

Vanjo

[gummyb]

They're covered in most PhotoShop books but I don't like them too much. Most people who see them...especially everyday folks...thinks the scene is fake.

[batard]

HDR is a great thing. check out photomatix on: http://www.hdrsoft.com/index.html

[fieldfest]

i havent had much success using it but below is my fix, take a pic with the sky exposed and another one with the foreground exposed, cut out the sky or land from one and stick it on top of the other photo with some feathering. see below- does this look too fake?

[jengle]

fieldfest - that looks pretty good to me. You have brightened the foreground without it looking too washed out - which is the challenge I've had when trying this technique.

[michaelsv]

I did use photomatix for couple of my galleries. The results were very interesting for me, since I was using a camera with very limited dynamic range. Many people are not pleased with HDR, since they say that color rendition is unnatural and poster looking. My idea of using HDR technique was not to render correct colors, but increase dynamic range of the image. Color perception is very personal and more related to the artistic vision. So I do happy with the colors on my HDR images.

You can take a look on two of my galleries

Beyond Camera Reach
http://www.pbase.com/michaelsv/hdr

and "Badlands or Three hours on Mars"
http://www.pbase.com/michaelsv/badlands

Michael.

[glamourfish]

I must confess...i have tried HDR a few times, but didn't seem to really do any special for me. Anybody else feel the same? I find shooting in Raw & using multiple exposures & layers works better for me...but then again I could just be doing something wrong.
Here's one I shot in HDR & did it using only RAW & the results were just about the same.
http://www.refre5h.com/photography/display.php?spgmGal=scapes&spgmPic=7&spgmFilters=#pic

[dnels0n]

Most of the samples I have seen tend to shout HDR. I would think maybe just a whisper would be better. How much control do these programs give you?

don
dnels0n
rockycreekimages

[ivinghoe]

I have just started using photomatix and used the tone mapping function
which amongst other controls allows saturation and contrast to be adjusted to preference.

Here is an example of normal (for me) raw processed to jpeg and the file redone using photomatix

normal


and photomatrix



the image was taken with a ND grad. It was too windy to be able to bracket exposures easily. The hdr version has enough detail where I wanted it.. in the clouds and the darker tree areas. This is how I saw the scene at the time of exposure
I will be redoing most of the images in the gallery as HDR as I get time

[dnels0n]

I find this example very helpful. There is a big improvement without a look of obvious manipulation.

don

[hip]

Hey guys,

I have used HDR on many occasions, I find it very helpful with jewelry and shooting cars. It helps getting multi-pass exposures of the subject in question.
I also use RAW multi exposure, and blend the photos manually via layers.
The following photo has been blended from RAW. please comment

[michaelachan]

There's something I dont understand about HDR.

Moving objects.. such as a car...........

How do you take 3 in time for it to work??? one over exposed, one underexposed and one just perfect.. but surely there would be movement of a boat, a car.. an animal?!?!

[hip]

There's something I dont understand about HDR.

Moving objects.. such as a car...........

How do you take 3 in time for it to work??? one over exposed, one underexposed and one just perfect.. but surely there would be movement of a boat, a car.. an animal?!?!

HDR is mostly used with static photography. i.e. interiors, landscape, jewelry, etc. I haven't heard of any use with sports or racing etc.

[pinemikey]

I've experimented doing a HDR like image using a RAW image and utilizing Raw Shooter Essentials to boost the Fill light, shadow and highlight contrasts. The result, converted to jpeg is then opened in Paint Shop Pro, where I clarify the image and apply a little saturation. (Note: I hope my Raw Shooter keeps working...I'll be dammed if I'm forking out 200 bucks to Adobe for anything...)

This method also solves the moving object bit...as I simply use one RAW image.

Here's the result:



http://www.pbase.com/pinemikey/image/76310802

[madlights]

Yeah I've tried it with using one RAW file and making 3 or more jpg's -one a stop down, and one a stop above...This is not at a very high quality here (like saved at a 7)so it looks a little soft
In this one it seemed to work...got the lows up. I've heard some say there's a 1/2 stop to a stop of DR headroom in most RAW files...so it helps if you can use that, as well as get detail in the lows...but unlike pinemikey's great example (and all the others too), many times I've found that for me HDR makes the colors look "thin" like on a 50's postcard. I think a lot depend on the photo...etc.etc. I think you can only compress so much from the ends without crowding something out of the middle. I've goofed around with ARGB and prophoto rgb and it seems although these are wide gamut...especially prophoto, because of this when you convert them to srgb which isn't so wide...something gets lost. I remember when radio stations first started playing CD playlists (dating myself here) a lot of people thought the sound was "thin" I think in many instances it seems to me that unless very careful HDR can amplify this...but it sure is fun to goof around with...and time consuming. I think it would work better for me doing it with bracketed exposure...but it does seem to get a little more dynamic range this way, and pulls detail out of the darks, without the halos that the "shadow and highlights" do in photoshop.