HDR idea

AdWright said:
Not meaning to be overly critical, but the application of HDR to that particular scene seems to be a bit pointless. The sky looks overcast as it is, so it seems as though you should be able to make a normal exposure without having to use HDR - there's no real detail in the sky.
Click to expand...

dont worry am stuck at home and i thought i would give the basic prinical of HDR a go its nothing serious :p
 
cyKey said:
Kinda but its different to stacking. From what I can gather stacking is just a blend of various images. HDR is a blend of multiple exposures design to give a higher dynamic range than would be possible with just a single photo. You get better detail in the shadows and highlights of the photo than you would with a normal image.
Click to expand...

various images vs multiple exposures - sounds like the same thing to me? although the HDR process appears to be mostly automated so I guess thats where the difference lies?

There have been some good examples of HDR on here recently and I can see that it has the potential to improve many digital images to the extent that they record a dynamic range closer to that of a film negative.

I can't see that this type of technology/processing will go away - and who knows maybe we will see HDR creeping in as a part of the onboard processing on digital cameras in the future!

Must give it a try sometime with a "good photo" :p
 
steveo said:
dont worry am stuck at home and i thought i would give the basic prinical of HDR a go its nothing serious :p
Click to expand...

With everyone using 'HDR' these days I think it's worth politely commenting that people should try and take a good photo to begin with.

It's like everyones just pointing the camera out the window, taking 3 snaps then HDR'ing it to crazy.

Before you take that first exposure, think first whether it's a good photo on it's own merits. If yes, HDR like crazy, if that's your thing. If not, then work at the composition some more and try again.
Click to expand...
 
stuart38 said:
various images vs multiple exposures - sounds like the same thing to me? although the HDR process appears to be mostly automated so I guess thats where the difference lies?

There have been some good examples of HDR on here recently and I can see that it has the potential to improve many digital images to the extent that they record a dynamic range closer to that of a film negative.

I can't see that this type of technology/processing will go away - and who knows maybe we will see HDR creeping in as a part of the onboard processing on digital cameras in the future!

Must give it a try sometime with a "good photo" :p
Click to expand...


many people seem to have a different perspective of what an HDR image actually is, I`m not saying that I`m 100% correct here but as far as i understand it a true HDR image is one with the dynamic range actually embeded into it. ie a .HDR file.
HDR in photography is mainly used to get a proper exposure of a shot that otherwise would have either a blown out sky (over exposed)or the shadows would look to dark(under exposed) this is due to the sensors not being able to record the sometimes huge amount of dynamic range, especially with really bright skies
so to counteract this you need to take a few shots at different exposures and then blend/merge them to a .HDR file - this basically takes the properly exposed bright bits from one image and the properly exposed dark buts from the another and blends them so the whole overall image is evenly exposed
this way of blending the images keeps all the lovely detail & tones captured in all the differently exposed shots.

please feel free to correct me if ive got any of that wrong heh
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom