Discussion
I know about as much as you so have a look here :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_im...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_im...
It's basically cramming in more highlight detail and shadow detail than you would otherwise get by merging more than one image.
E.g. This was taken at dawn and there's no way a digital sensor (or a film for that matter) could cope with the light from the sunrise and the shadow under the boat:
What I want to know is how HDR works in Photoshop, because I've tried recently with some images only to get "failed: there's not enough dynamic range.... blah, blah.." when one is virtually black and the other white! If someone can point out a useful HDR merge in Photoshop explanation I'd be grateful!
E.g. This was taken at dawn and there's no way a digital sensor (or a film for that matter) could cope with the light from the sunrise and the shadow under the boat:
What I want to know is how HDR works in Photoshop, because I've tried recently with some images only to get "failed: there's not enough dynamic range.... blah, blah.." when one is virtually black and the other white! If someone can point out a useful HDR merge in Photoshop explanation I'd be grateful!
hdr is a gimick. Often poor images are given the hdr treatment trying to make them look good by being so surreal. Done correctly you shouldnt be able to obviously tell it is hdr, rather, it should be apparant to the trained eye. It is useful, for instance, its bloody good for converting to BW and enabling much more contrast. The flip side is you start to rely on it rather than doing proper metering or adjustments to the camera meter for what you want to grab.
I fell in love with it last year for the surreal look then quickly got fed up. You do get some nice results as with any processing.
I fell in love with it last year for the surreal look then quickly got fed up. You do get some nice results as with any processing.
HDR certainly doesn't begin and end with Photomatix. It's an eye-catching technique and can be very effective, but the more extreme versions of it might soon end up at the back of the drawer with all our grad tobacco and coral stripe filters.
However, what will never go out of fashion, and IMHO is one of the major benefits of digital, is the ability to capture a scene as the eye sees it.
In the attached example the original exposures ran from 2s to 30s and were combined as layers in PS, with masks to select the best bits of each capture. I'd like to think it looks fairly natural and it certainly couldn't have been achieved without an HDR technique.
However, what will never go out of fashion, and IMHO is one of the major benefits of digital, is the ability to capture a scene as the eye sees it.
In the attached example the original exposures ran from 2s to 30s and were combined as layers in PS, with masks to select the best bits of each capture. I'd like to think it looks fairly natural and it certainly couldn't have been achieved without an HDR technique.
Edited by S. Gonzales Esq. on Thursday 24th January 11:12
bacchus180 said:
Nooo not the Miami Vice grad tobacco filter... god I love that one...
I went to Miami for the first time ever, just last month. I can't believe that the sky didn't look like CSI: Miami all the time.
Except that, strangely, there were times when it almost did - just didn't have my camera to hand when it happened!!
Surely it is just another useful tool/weapon in the photographers armoury (apologies if spelling poor!)
I've got the Sigma 10-20mm wideangle zoom, and I love the pictures it takes and the distortion it puts on the images, but probably (read do) use it too much, surely HDR is as valid as any other item that doesn't give a run of the mill picture.
I know there is an argument over the getting subject, composition and lighting spot on for an interesting pic, but these sorts of things open it up that bit further..
I've got the Sigma 10-20mm wideangle zoom, and I love the pictures it takes and the distortion it puts on the images, but probably (read do) use it too much, surely HDR is as valid as any other item that doesn't give a run of the mill picture.
I know there is an argument over the getting subject, composition and lighting spot on for an interesting pic, but these sorts of things open it up that bit further..
oh its great and as exampleed above can work just it is also a big distraction from trying lighting out too. I got suckerd into it and forget everything about lighting as the hdr took care of it. Since I got bored with the 4000 hours it took to process an image I decided to stop being lazy, got out my grad tobaco filter and went back to meter compensating
You cannot beat a gradient nd
HDR
Old skool
From what the Dick Lovett shot is described, its a better way of doing hte HDR, rather than getting into the tone mmapping simply mask the ares - might try that one instead as it certainly looks nicer.
You cannot beat a gradient nd
HDR
Old skool
From what the Dick Lovett shot is described, its a better way of doing hte HDR, rather than getting into the tone mmapping simply mask the ares - might try that one instead as it certainly looks nicer.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff