First Go at HDR

[tonyzero]

i know HDR is meant to be taken with 3 or even 5 pictures but i had a go with one RAW picture and made three with CS4 by adjusting the exposure to -2EV and one with +2EV and here is what i come up with.

Before

Bigger click Here

After

bigger Click Here

Comments welcome

 

[ScarySquirrel]

Whilst I have not done any HDR myself, I would say that has been WAY overdone. It doesn't even look like a photo any more.

Can you not tone it down a bit?

 

[Johnny|lucidcomposure]

there is just not enough shadows it looks awful on the bottom. Its like someones sprayed toxic all over it.
I had a look at the bigger and its just over done some on the buildings and esp them trees!!

 

[knowlesy]

looks quite good in all honesty although I think man made objects (clunky metal buildings etc) look a lot better in hdr than natural, but in this youve got a good mix nice

try photomatix it may make things a little easier

(although saying that ive never used photoshop to do hdr)

 

[tonyzero]

Back to the drawing board

 

[tonyzero]

Any better ?

Bigger

 

[Irish_Tom]

MY EYES!

Slightly over-cooked I think.

The edit is still too strong mate. HDR should be used to bring out detail in images that wouldn't have enough dynamic range in a single exposure. From what I can see there's nothing wrong with the original image so no need for HDR.

I'd suggest a different image with a bigger dynamic range and try using photomatix.

Panzer

 

[tonyzero]

for those of you that have done HDR are you processing the picture much before hand ?

are you increasing the colours ?

 

[Yarde]

Are you using Photomatix to combine the exposures?

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD! take down Colour Saturation and Strength!

 

[tonyzero]

Are you using Photomatix to combine the exposures?

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD! take down Colour Saturation and Strength!

sorry i only started using photomatrix today

 

[tonyzero]

last time Yarde as i have to go out

Bigger

probably still to much

 

[PeterNem]

The original photo doesn't look too bad... there aren't massively over exposed or under exposed areas... does it even need HDR? If the sky was over exposed and you were going to use HDR to get the sky in then fine, but it's not.

 

[tonyzero]

The original photo doesn't look too bad... there aren't massively over exposed or under exposed areas... does it even need HDR? If the sky was over exposed and you were going to use HDR to get the sky in then fine, but it's not.

i was just playing around

 

[D.P.]

hideous. The shot simply does not need HDR in the first place.

To know if HDR has worked well no one should be able to tell if it is an HDR image, only by intelligence analysis of the probable dynamic range of the scene and the resulting image.

 

[ScarySquirrel]

I agree, I don't think the original is really the right type of photo for HDR.

 

[A.N.Other]

That's getting there - it's certainly much better, anyway.

There's nothing in that scene that particularly needs HDR, though if you want to use it for the effect then it's your choice. The only thing that image really needs is a few contrast and shadows tweaks.

 

[tonyzero]

ok guys thanks for your input as i say i was only playing around with it but to be fair there are a few HDR pics on flickr that i would say don't look like the real thing

 

[PinkFloyd]

I'm generally a big fan of the heavily processed HDR images, but for me this picture doesn't work at all.
There isn't enough range in the image for it to be worthwhile, and the effect HDR has then given it is just too much saturation - you could get the same effect just by upping brightness and colour saturation in photoshop!

 

[D.P.]

ok guys thanks for your input as i say i was only playing around with it but to be fair there are a few HDR pics on flickr that i would say don't look like the real thing

IF you want a good HDR scenario, then sit in you bedroom/living room and take a photo including the room and the window. You will find that either the dark room is properly exposed, or the scene through the window, but not both. So setup a tripod, and with a remote release set off 3 exposure separated by at least 1 stop.

Play around in Photomatix or whatever you use until the room looks completely normal yet you can still still the scene through the window.
Then in photoshop/gimp make an alternative when you use layers and manually blend the window scene into the properly exposed room shot.

 

[Helium_Junkie]

ok guys thanks for your input as i say i was only playing around with it but to be fair there are a few HDR pics on flickr that i would say don't look like the real thing

Simply put, the original image doesn't call for HDR. There are no areas too bright or too dark, all you're going to be doing by creating an HDR of it is changing the saturation of the image as a whole.

For a well done HDR, this is the last thing you actually want. You shouldn't need to up the saturation, HDR is only meant to bring the details out (lightness).

Oversaturated HDR's are a different ball game, some people really like those, and in them circles I think your image would be popular - but not many people here like them, because they really aren't a classy photographic style.

If you want to do the latter, then carry on as you are, you're doing fine, but you won't get much praise for them here.

If you want to do the former, get a scene which needs it, knock the saturation waaaaaaaay down. Make your picture look averagely light, then open it in PS and process it as normal, contrast, levels, all that gubbins. Don't use photomatix (not trix ) to process your photo.

Best of luck to you