Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I agree with Bill, should try to look the way people see the image with their own eyes

I call this realistic HDR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's not obvious it's a non issue, unless you're indicating whether or not the image is digitally altered. 

 

Still, it seems HDR is often used my "self taught"  photographers who don't really understand basic exposure and post processing. My Nikon NEF images have an incredible amount of latitude. HDR might be useful at night but i haven't felt the need to use it.

 

fD

Edited by fotoDogue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of very old threads being added to lately.

 

I think it's unlikely that HDR images processed to give a typical HDR look would sell. HDR can be processed in many ways though, and if you keep the settings quite conservative, it's possible to enhance the image nicely. Having said that though, the scope of modern day RAW files and the ease of processing from quality software like Lightroom often gives just as good results. I find it quite rare nowadays that I can get a realistic looking result that looks better after HDR processing than using just one image. Of course you can use only one RAW file to do the HDR processing, but I find the results are better just by doing a good job in Lightroom.

 

The only decent realistic results I've had with HDR is when there is a big difference in exposure between different parts of an image. I have some images of a castle that was lit up very nicely by the low sun, but bushes in the foreground were in total shadow. The only way to get the range of exposure for making the whole scene look good was taking 2 or 3 bracketed shots, and processing them together as an HDR image. They turned out very nicely.

 

Geoff.

Thanks Geoff -  useful to know. I have started to experiment with some HDR presets in Lightroom, mainly to to speed things up a bit, and then after having applied the effects I try and tweak the HDRs to give a more realistic/conservative result. Not sure if it is worth doing but it can help 'rescue' some images taken in difficult conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like shadows. Let shadows be shadows. 

Oh, yeah i remember the tobacco grad filter. I still have it somewhere. I'll let it stay there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I like shadows. Let shadows be shadows. 

Oh, yeah i remember the tobacco grad filter. I still have it somewhere. I'll let it stay there. 

 

 

The human eye has a lot more dynamic range than your camera's sensor. When your eye can see details in both highlights and shadows, I want my shots to also show those details rather than details in the mid-tones along with complete white and complete black. HDR brings those texture details out in both cases on the same resulting image, when the difference in exposure between dark and light goes beyond the scope of a standard RAW file. That's when HDR is needed and is effective, so your image represents what the eye actually saw at the time. That doesn't mean you can't have shadows and highlights - It just means those areas have more texture and better colours, as those details are captured in the original shots and not lost.

 

Geoff.

 

 

I remember that I read it somewhere that the human eye has a parabolic curve dynamic range, therefore, we can see more detail in the shadows than in the highlights, not sure if that is scientific, though.

The other thing that happens is that we usually scan the image looking at different places and combine the image in our brain, so, you dont even realize, but you look at the shadows, take a "mind" picture, look at the subject, take another "shot", than look at the, say, sky, and combine the three images in your mind in a "super realistic" HDR.

So I think it makes sense using HDR techniques to try to have an image that looks like what you saw in your mind.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no real answer to this question.

 

HDR is many things to many people. I use Photomatix and Oloneo to do HDR. But the trick is to do it in a way that means most people, other then in the expouser range of the picture, can tell it is HDR. Sometimes I even achieve that effect! If taking a pictures against the sun you cannot do anything else then end up with a perfectly exposed subject and a white sky, or else a blue sky and a very dark subject. There are limits to how much you can push in Lightroom and even Photoshop, and it takes time. Step up HDR and job done.

 

Photomatix is good but I use both and nearly always will afterwards, for a nature look, select the Oloneo verison. This one is expensive, but it's the most natural looking one. Occasionally they do offers, and if they don't, ask, I did when upgrading and they gave me a nice discount.

 

But HDR for many is over-the-top type contrast and details, and sometimes i actually like that look. One photographer as made his life's career with it and good luck to him, wish we all could be as successful. He certainly made us all aware of HDR and few ignore it for long, though not all carry on using it.

 

As for Alamy, they sell pictures, so if HDR sells or not depends on the two important factors, your key-wording, (the best picture in the world will hardly sell if the key-wording is rubbish), and the buyer's wants.

 

As a couple of people have said here, HDR is merely a tool, it can be used in many ways for many different results. Use it as such, get the result you want that pleases you, if that is natural then great, if that is over the top then just as good. Because by doing what you feel looks great, you will end up doing it better then trying for a look, natural or OTT, that doesn't please you. Someone somewhere will like whatever you end up with.

 

Is HDR digiatly altered? Well do we not process all our pictures to some degree? Therefore we alter then all really. Ansel Adams achieved HDR by dodging and burning, same idea, expose the negative more for the dark areas and less for the light areas...Altered? I mark altered if I have the end result as not looking like it did to my eye, if the result of five exposers put together is what my eye saw, then I don't think that is altered. Altered to me means changed. Having additional tonal range to show what the human eye saw is not altering an image, adding increased contrast, detail and colour is, as that is not what we see. (I bet that opens a can of worms LOL)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel this chap is very good at HDR techniques but whether these type of images are acceptable I don't know.

 

What I see on the screen capture just makes me cringe! I really don't like that over the top glowy fuzzyness. As other's have mentioned if you can't tell it's HDR then it was done right. I think this HDR is a fad that will be looked upon very unfavorably like fisheye shots in the 1970's, mullets in the 1980's etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.