Had a crack at HDR

Trick

Trick

Trick

Soldato
Joined
7 Oct 2003
Posts
3,909
Location
York
Hi, I thought I'd have a go at an HDR image. Unfortunately I didn't have a tripod with me but I'm quite pleased with the old shakey hand for a first attempt!

Peak2%20%281024%20x%20677%29.jpg
 
It's a bit flat, 10 seconds worth of levels adjustments gives it some more pop:

peak21024x677kq3.jpg


I'm generally of the opinion that selectively masked levels and curves layers generally gives a better result than HDR.
 
King4aDay said:
It's a bit flat, 10 seconds worth of levels adjustments gives it some more pop:

I'm generally of the opinion that selectively masked levels and curves layers generally gives a better result than HDR.
Click to expand...

Wow, thanks, that looks great! What exactly did you change? This is all new to me! :)
 
In photoshop, go to Layer > New Adjustment Layer > Levels

Then play with the sliders til it looks like what you want (generally try and have the outside markers on the edges of the histogram). In this case, getting the land looking nice meant that the sky was blown, so I then masked off that part of the levels adjustment layer.

Google layer masks if you're not sure how to use them, they're the single most useful thing in post processing.
 
To be honest, I think King's looks slightly over processed now. I would go for somewhere between the two images.
 
This is all good info, thanks for the comments! I was interested in just experimenting with HDR. The problem is I'm not at home with my desktop with CS3 install - I'm working from a netbook so I'm limited in what I can play with at the moment.

When I get home I'll have a good old play around with postprocessing, photoshop et al.
 
HDR is a much misused term in photography I think.

Strictly speaking, aren't we talking about combining 2 or more images of the same subject at different exposures to expand the dynamic range of the photograph, eg to expose for land and sky? That way, we're increasing the dynamic range of the camera so that it can see something closer to what the eye sees.

What people commonly refer to as HDR photography is the stuff where it has been 'tone mapped' to produce all kinds of effects which you either love or hate.

Both terms are correct of course, but in this photograph I think we're talking about the former, which has done what it says on the tin so to speak....?
 
Tooks said:
HDR is a much misused term in photography I think.

Strictly speaking, aren't we talking about combining 2 or more images of the same subject at different exposures to expand the dynamic range of the photograph, eg to expose for land and sky? That way, we're increasing the dynamic range of the camera so that it can see something closer to what the eye sees.

What people commonly refer to as HDR photography is the stuff where it has been 'tone mapped' to produce all kinds of effects which you either love or hate.

Both terms are correct of course, but in this photograph I think we're talking about the former, which has done what it says on the tin so to speak....?
Click to expand...

No it's about taking an image which is usually only 8-bit (jpg) and making it potentially a lot more (serveral million) to process it, usually tone map, and then compress it back down to a usuble 8-bit jpg
 
yantorsen said:
No it's about taking an image which is usually only 8-bit (jpg) and making it potentially a lot more (serveral million) to process it, usually tone map, and then compress it back down to a usuble 8-bit jpg
Click to expand...

Who says?! ;)

Anyway, I was really talking about the comments you often read along with HDR pictures, when it's clear that a lot of people confuse what an HDR image actually is. Some peope think HDR images are only the heavily tone mapped ones that look more like paintings than photographs.

Leaving aside the technicalities of HDR images, I guess i was just trying to point out that the OP's pic is just as valid an example of HDR as anything, and in fact is more in keeping with what essentially High Dynamic Range photography is, namely a technique that expands the range of dark to light in an image beyond that you'd normally be able to capture with one shot. This is also without tone mapping software or any bit conversions...

I just thought it was interesting how photographic terms take on an accepted meaning over time, which is sometimes a bit narrow, that's all.

I don't want to de-rail the thread, and actually thinking this deeply about HDR images is probably a sign that I've reached the end of my useful life tonight, and should probably do something more useful like get to sleep!! :)

OP: Forgot to say that I liked the image, and agree that somewhere in between your pic and the edit is where it should be at.
 
King4aDay said:
Let's just all agree HDR is crap and not worry about the semantics :p
Click to expand...

Ah, but WHICH HDR are you talking about?!!...

HDR, in all its forms, can actually look very nice, and done in a way where it doesn't 'look' HDR, so I can't agree with you there! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom