First Go at HDR

Ok well I just happened to of taken 2 HDR images this afternoon as I was bored.

I do push the saturation a little but we'll see what the general opinion is.

hdr1.jpg


hdr2.jpg


Now my main two gripes with my shots is the patchy sky around objects in its place (the tree on the 2nd) and the gradient on the first. It isn't awful but not ideal.
Anyway these were only stock images so I ain't all that fussed.
 
Fstop11 said:
Now my main two gripes with my shots is the patchy sky around objects in its place (the tree on the 2nd) and the gradient on the first. It isn't awful but not ideal.
Anyway these were only stock images so I ain't all that fussed.
Click to expand...

I find that in photomatix if you alter the light smoothing it will reduce the halo effect around the trees.

I'm not overly keen on the over processed HDR I'm afraid though
 
I think Picasso would have been proud of these shots. As would any Sony Bravia TV advert exec. If that is the effect people who do this type of HDR are going for then fair enough, but by and large scenes like this simply do not benefit from the treatment.
 
Less is most certainly more with Detail Enhanced HDR, in my experience atleast.

I used HDR in this and it's just about right I think.

withypool2web.jpg
 
2Thumbs said:
Less is most certainly more with Detail Enhanced HDR, in my experience atleast.

I used HDR in this and it's just about right I think.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v244/TuThumbs/withypool2web.jpg[/][/QUOTE]

+1.

HDR is best left at the point where you are not 100% sure if it is HDR or just post processing adjusting the levels. Unless of course you are after a specific affect such as Paradigm's Seat Leon pic.

It is meant to represent what the eye naturally sees. Such as a picture inside a room looking out of a window. The eye can see both inside and through the window.
Click to expand...
 
The secret is to get the right balance of HDR into your images.
Over the top HDR looks more like an illustration than a picture and sometimes can distract from the subject, such as in natural pictures, but buildings can look good.

When i first started experimenting with HDR i soon realised that sometimes less is more and i have toned down my Post Processing.

For natural pictures I tend to stay clear of HDR as it takes away from the softness.

I've seen many many examples of HDR on flickr of over-processed images that it just looks stupid as if a silly filter has been used in Photoshop.

1. Good composition
2. Take various shots at various AEV settings (+2, +1, 0, -1, -2)
3. Turn down the colour saturation rather than having bold colours.
4. Go easy on the illumination and brightness (i myself, tend to prefer more darker looking pictures, especially landscape shots, as this adds to the sky and the mood)

HDR should be used to compliment the original picture - not turn it into something artificial.

Most of all, experiment, experiment and experiment. Dont worry about it being overly over the top to begin with. Eventually you will get it right.

Here are a few example of my HDR efforts:
This is slightly over the top but i think ive got away with it thanks to the subject matter:
364655851771132c578fo.jpg


More subtle HDR:

3618188754d664864501o.jpg


362865495673b4e7b41fo.jpg
 
Last edited:
I actually quite like all the examples here, including the original by the OP. It may not be true to life but is really striking, almost painted look. Might look really nice as a big print!
I have tried hdr too with varied results, but I tend to like the slightly OTT look and process accordingly:

medium.jpg

medium.jpg

medium.jpg

medium.jpg


Andrew
 
I think, as usual, that people are being over restrictive with the phrase HDR...

HDR can be a technical exercise so that you capture the whole of the scenes dynamic range which when combined look like a normal photo, but obviously with a wide range captured.

Or, more controversially, it can be images combined and processed in a way that achieves an artistic effect or something you'd never see with your own eyes.

Everybody has their own preferences of course, but there is no 'right' or 'wrong' way with HDR IMO, just different ways.

Willis' shot is a nice pic, but that type of 'looks like a painting' shot has been done to death, so why not try something different? :)
 
Tooks said:
I think, as usual, that people are being over restrictive with the phrase HDR...

HDR can be a technical exercise so that you capture the whole of the scenes dynamic range which when combined look like a normal photo, but obviously with a wide range captured.

Or, more controversially, it can be images combined and processed in a way that achieves an artistic effect or something you'd never see with your own eyes.

Everybody has their own preferences of course, but there is no 'right' or 'wrong' way with HDR IMO, just different ways.

Willis' shot is a nice pic, but that type of 'looks like a painting' shot has been done to death, so why not try something different? :)
Click to expand...


I agree with the above that there is so many different styles of HDR some over the top some very slight. My pic was a quick bash at HDR and know it has been done to death ;)
 
Sorry Willis, I didn't mean that to sound as harsh as it maybe came across!! :)

It's a lovely picture, and one I'd be proud of, I was just putting it into the context of the HDR debate!
 
Tooks said:
Sorry Willis, I didn't mean that to sound as harsh as it maybe came across!! :)

It's a lovely picture, and one I'd be proud of, I was just putting it into the context of the HDR debate!
Click to expand...

Its cool I totally know where your coming from, HDR is the Marmite of the photography world. Also HDR should be added to Politics & Religon for the cause of arguments :D

I'm in the process of a getting a Medium format set up and as much as I love HDR I also love straight out the camera photography which I'm hoping I will get from the Medium format set-up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom