HDR - I love it!

Hawk Tuah

Hawk Tuah

Hawk Tuah

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
14,277
Location
Sandwich, Kent
Had to take photos at a meeting and I thought I'd get some nice shots of the venue.

It was a perfect opportunity to try out some HDR shots. Not bad for hand held.


Normal photo
HDR5.JPG


/Edit - on advice - here is the more natural HDR composition. Hopefully I've improved the perception of depth.

HDR7.jpg


Original high saturation 'flat' images.

#1
http://www.bugone.co.uk/ocuk/HDR.jpg
http://www.bugone.co.uk/ocuk/HDR2.jpg

#2
http://www.bugone.co.uk/ocuk/HDR3.JPG
http://www.bugone.co.uk/ocuk/HDR4.jpg

#3
http://www.bugone.co.uk/ocuk/HDR6.jpg

Awsome eh!
 
Last edited:
gotta agree with Mr Kahn.
They have to much of a "false look" to them.
I like HDR, but they seem to look flat.
Sorry.
 
HDR looks fine in some pictures, but just to try improve/recover a photo it as above just becomes a false looking photograph :(.
 
I prefer the sky on the HDR ones, did you adjust the levels to get a blue sky?

That said, the HDR ones look a little like something from a computer game, definitely not natural but if that's the look you're going for then it's all good. :)
 
I think with HDR you have to retain some sense of light contrast, otherwise the result looks too flat. And this makes it look fake. Your brain is expecting certain areas to be darker, and other areas to be lighter. Too much HDR and you lose all that.

HDR should be used to bring back completely lost detail. i.e. where it would be completely black, or totally white.. but not too much that you lose all lighting contrast.

#1 is best for me. #3 has some dodgy haloing around trees and doesn't seem to benefit from HDR at all IMO.
 
syke said:
HDR looks fine in some pictures, but just to try improve/recover a photo it as above just becomes a false looking photograph :(.
Click to expand...
Aside from a saturation boost, which you could argue I've over done creating a 'false' look, what is there to recover? I could easily reduce the saturation down and make it look more natural.

MikeHunt79 said:
I prefer the sky on the HDR ones, did you adjust the levels to get a blue sky?

That said, the HDR ones look a little like something from a computer game, definitely not natural but if that's the look you're going for then it's all good. :)
Click to expand...
The HDR was done with 3 photos. The sky is as it was in the longer exposure shot. I was going for a 'look' to highlight what HDR could do - as apose to making a completely natural looking image.

I thought they were pretty good seeing as all 3 pictures were by hand.
 
Last edited:
Nutster said:
#3 has some dodgy haloing around trees and doesn't seem to benefit from HDR at all IMO.
Click to expand...
The trees are difficult.

Because however steady the camera is there will be a bit of movement - I think the software has done that to remove ghosting.

Photo #1 I turned the reduce ghosting effect off - and you can see its a bit blurry as a result.
 
They just look soft, unrealistic and there's no contrast. HDR can be done well but I don't think these are, sorry.

When it's done right it can look fantastic, check out Dave Hill. He does hyper realistic portraits using HDR amongst other things (even some of his are too much though).
Mostly they're completely over the top but they work because of the subject matter and what they're used for.

Some more HDR that's been used to good effect (IMO, of course):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/valpopando/
 
You need to take a minimum of 3 photos for HDR. One at -2 exposure, one at 0 exposure and 1 at -2 exposure for it to work well. Using a single pic doesn't doesn't cut the mustard sometimes. Not unless the original RAW file is good.
They look too soft to me and the colours look odd.
 
I think it's the tone mapping that's the problem for me with these to be honest, although the fact they were handheld doesn't help as the windows are blurred and there is ghosting on the edges.

HDR can be done well, either for artistic effect or just to get a normal looking photograph that covers the range nearer to what your eyes can see.

It doesn't have to look false at all, but then you do say that with yours that was the effect you wanted.
 
I don't often use HDR to restore a photo, as I find that if I have shadows in my photo, it's to help enhance the depth and feel of the subject. I do enjoy using it for artistic reasons though, as sometimes it can help bring out a photo that would otherwise be thrown away. Here is an example of a recent one I did:

DSC_1678hdr.jpg
 
jr1104 said:
I don't often use HDR to restore a photo, as I find that if I have shadows in my photo, it's to help enhance the depth and feel of the subject. I do enjoy using it for artistic reasons though, as sometimes it can help bring out a photo that would otherwise be thrown away. Here is an example of a recent one I did:

DSC_1678hdr.jpg
Click to expand...

Left half of the photo is noticeably darker than the right.
 
Yeah, the sun was coming down through the trees and only really illuminating that half, which is why I opted for HDR. I need to get some practice with it anyway, so no harm in trying.
 
I think HDR looks ghastly!.

you'd be far better off learning to use good exposure and use of light in a scene worth photographing.. sorry for being harsh lol, I just think that making everything look like Farcry takes away anything pleasing from the image.
 
It depends on the amount and what you use it in IMO.

I've always been more a fan of tone HDR rather than detail, but both have their uses.

Yours are certainly more subtle than a lot I've seen, but still a bit too much for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom