does this look like an 'HDR image' to you?

GeX

GeX

GeX

Soldato
Joined
17 Dec 2002
Posts
6,992
Location
Manchester
denbigh_people.jpg
 
It doesnt scream HDR no. The halo effect around the trees is a tell tale sign, but thats easy to say after being told.
 
ok, cheers for the views.

how do you define the HDR process. Feeding a few differently exposed images into photomatrix and then tone mapping it? Is Lightroom capable of doing HDR?
 
Definitely looks HDR to me

The texture on the building, water reflection, fringing, halo around the tall trees and lack of natural shadows all give it away
 
GeX said:
ok, cheers for the views.

how do you define the HDR process. Feeding a few differently exposed images into photomatrix and then tone mapping it? Is Lightroom capable of doing HDR?
Click to expand...

Nope, Lightroom can't do it (yet).A HDR definition is in the name; High Dynamic Range. Its basically anything that extends the dynamic range of an image. This is normally achieved through taking multiple exposures and tone mapping them. Personally I rarely like HDR images, but having said that when I exposure blend shots I suppose I am doing a type of HDR.
 
ok, so given that this is the basic jpg off the camera (i shoot RAW + Basic JPG)

denbigh_people_basic.jpg


and the one i first posted hasn't been touched outside of Lightroom, still HDR?
 
Technically no as you haven't extended the dynamic range. You have simply pushed it through a software process to give it a typical 'hdr' type effect.
 
GeX said:
ok, cheers for the views.

how do you define the HDR process. Feeding a few differently exposed images into photomatrix and then tone mapping it? Is Lightroom capable of doing HDR?
Click to expand...



the HDR process, or lets say the process you are doing is done the way you describe, the exposures you need would be at least one for shadows, one for highlights and one midrange

ive not used photomatrix so i cant go any further on that


the photo you have posted origionally does not really call for any HDR, the origional .jpg looks slightly over exposed, getting the right exposure would make the shot, rather than trying hdr
 
i wasn't trying to create an HDR effect there though.. if you can look at it and see that then there is too much done!

pretty much all i did was drop the exposure (its already shot under by 0.7 i think) until the sky looked right and then boosted the mid tones to bring the foreground back.
 
JBuk said:
the photo you have posted origionally does not really call for any HDR, the origional .jpg looks slightly over exposed, getting the right exposure would make the shot, rather than trying hdr
Click to expand...

it's why i've not tried it, just tried to get the exposure right in lightroom - which in doing so i lost the foreground.
 
i dropped my sigma 10-20 in my breakfast and got cocopops on the insde of the outer element :(
 
GeX said:
it's why i've not tried it, just tried to get the exposure right in lightroom - which in doing so i lost the foreground.
Click to expand...

i realise that now, just assumed as you asked if it looked HDR that was what you were trying.
 
It 'looks' HDR because a lot of people when doing HDR end up 'fixing' the exposure so perfectly that in the end it just looks bland. Which is ironic really because the whole point of HDR is that you're actually adding dynamic range.

What you've done is similar in a sense, because you've taken away a lot of the contrast between the dark and light areas of the image and made it all very uniform. To me, it looks very grey. The contrast (or lack of) doesnt fit what my eye is telling me; that part of the image should be quite dark, and some of it should be quite bright. Hence it looks odd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom