Fake HDR's

[tedgtfan]

I was intrigued with some of the HDR threads and l)V8 very nicely referred me to some web pages(thanks again l)V8). While reading the how to's I came across an article on "Faking an HDR in Photoshop". The article explained how you could do an HDR with one exposure instead of multi. So I followed the directions and here's what came out. To all you experienced HDRer's please give some C&C and all others also. Let me know if your experienced eye sees it as being true to the HDR form or if indeed fake looking. Thanks

1. Original

2. Fake HDR

Thanks all

 

[DSLR noob]

Sorry but it looks like cr@p. Want to see a good HDR? Find soemthing by Woodsac, you NEED multi exposures. I can't make a good HDR I know it, I need to keep refining until I can pull it off, I think that's where you stand too.

 

[tedgtfan]

Sorry but it looks like cr@p. Want to see a good HDR? Find soemthing by Woodsac, you NEED multi exposures. I can't make a good HDR I know it, I need to keep refining until I can pull it off, I think that's where you stand too.

Thanks Do you think it's too contrasty, bright ,dark, unsharp etc. what makes it look like crap to you?

 

[jon_k]

My attempts at a "fake hdr" never turn out as good as the tutorial examples. They always look like yours. I prefer real HDR's, although doing it without all the brackets would be nice.

If cameras had 100 stops of DR, it'd be easy to do "fake hdrs" I think.

 

[DSLR noob]

Thanks Do you think it's too contrasty, bright ,dark, unsharp etc. what makes it look like crap to you?

sorry I came off as an @$$, I was a little upset by another thread in the discussion section about "convincing someone else that their gear sucks and needs an upgrade". Personally, I think that the imge doesn't get the extra detail that an HDR gets by overexposing shadows and underexposing highlights. The other thing is that it is WAAAY too saturated, that red is now a bright neon pink! Something a flower never represents itself as in the real world. Hey like I said though, I am in the same boat, so don't take it as an attack. Here's my attempt.

one of the originals:
http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n15/eastermonkey/IMG_0078.jpg

My crappy HDR(mine is WAY undersaturated but the red came out as REALLY RED instead of maroon):
http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n15/eastermonkey/240SXHDR2.jpg

but do you see the texture and detail I'm talking about? Look at the road, the front bumper, etc.

 

[tedgtfan]

sorry I came off as an @$$, I was a little upset by another thread in the discussion section about "convincing someone else that their gear sucks and needs an upgrade". Personally, I think that the imge doesn't get the extra detail that an HDR gets by overexposing shadows and underexposing highlights. The other thing is that it is WAAAY too saturated, that red is now a bright neon pink! Something a flower never represents itself as in the real world. Hey like I said though, I am in the same boat, so don't take it as an attack. Here's my attempt.


one of the originals:
http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n15/eastermonkey/IMG_0078.jpg

My crappy HDR(mine is WAY undersaturated but the red came out as REALLY RED instead of maroon):
http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n15/eastermonkey/240SXHDR2.jpg

but do you see the texture and detail I'm talking about? Look at the road, the front bumper, etc.

I didn't take it that way. I took it as an honest opinion. That's why I asked the what ?, to learn from opinions. Yeah once I got your pics side by side I could see. My thoughts too on the saturation. But I didn't know if was just me.
Thanks again

 

[LaFoto]

Is it possible to tell me in short words (without sending me to that tutorial) how the "fake HDRs" are being made in Photoshop alone? All I know (and do - but it is considered "fake", too) is shooting in RAW, creating three or five exposures in the RAW-converter programme, saving those three or five exposures, and later have Photomatix merge them for me so I can tone-map them. After that I usually go back into Photoshop with that new picture and further work on it. But the outcome of your attempts suggests you are going yet another way? (One that so far does not convince me, from what I see here).

Oh, and I moved the thread, as you can see, as it seems to have become a lot more general and no longer is only about the rose-photos, but about this method of pp as a whole.

 

[Garbz]

I don't think it's as much fakeing a HDR as it is about applying the tonemapping method. This has nothing to do with HDR really as tonemapping works on normal 8 bit images too. The advantages of HDR come in as it gives the tonemapper extra dynamic range to work with.

I'm going to leave this discussion there because this topic has a lot of really good and terrible advice. A google search will yield lots of great tutorials on the subject and equally as many from people who must have hit bumped their heads while opening photoshop. And as I'm not very fond of the tonemapped effect (unless truly done well like Woodsac's and some others around), or done really subtly, so I can't really provide any more comment as I'd be making it up.

 

[kalmkidd]

ya i think its horrible looking not sharp at all, contrast is way off. basically look at ur pic. then look at this. A REAL HDR.

 

[zendianah]

I fake HDR's. I shoot people. AND they are moving targets. Naturally a moving target would not work as a "true" HDR. I call it HDRish because I apply the tonemapping. I'm not saying that my pictures are great but I think they are "ok".. Its just fun to experiment. !!

My next experiement will be infrared.. JUST looks COOOL

 

[LaFoto]

I still don't get it: are we talking about the multiplied RAW-files here - or is THIS "HDR in Photoshop" out of a single jpeg-file?

 

[JHF Photography]

I believe the "fake" HDR that is being mentioned is the process of taking one image, generating 3 different exposures from it, and then using those 3 images for the tone mapping. The "proper" way to make an HDR is to physically take 3 photographs at different exposures and use those for the tone mapping.

As to the question of the OP, the image looks pretty bad. I think the main problem is the original picture isn't a very good candidate for an HDR type photo. Generally the whole reason for shooting an HDR is when the scene has too many stops difference between the highlights and the shadows for the camera to properly capture the whole range of detail.

Your starting picture looked great to me, a well exposed shot of a flower isolated against a nice clean background.... perhaps with just a bit to shallow depth of field. My suggestion to you would be to try the HDR thing again, but with a different starting picture... one better suited to the technique.

 

[kalmkidd]

I believe the "fake" HDR that is being mentioned is the process of taking one image, generating 3 different exposures from it, and then using those 3 images for the tone mapping. The "proper" way to make an HDR is to physically take 3 photographs at different exposures and use those for the tone mapping.

As to the question of the OP, the image looks pretty bad. I think the main problem is the original picture isn't a very good candidate for an HDR type photo. Generally the whole reason for shooting an HDR is when the scene has too many stops difference between the highlights and the shadows for the camera to properly capture the whole range of detail.

Your starting picture looked great to me, a well exposed shot of a flower isolated against a nice clean background.... perhaps with just a bit to shallow depth of field. My suggestion to you would be to try the HDR thing again, but with a different starting picture... one better suited to the technique.

exactly..

 

[Lucas_L]

I know photoshop HDR is pretty difficult. I was searching around one day for some HDR help and i found some cool programs.

Photomatix- it actually compresses all of your exposures automatically, and gives you freedom to select saturation, brightness, WB, and a whole slew of other things. It's pretty cool.

The other program i would recomend for HDR is Aperture. I think it is a little easier to use than Pshop, but thats just me.

 

[Joxby]

ya i think its horrible looking not sharp at all, contrast is way off. basically look at ur pic. then look at this. A REAL HDR.

The intention of HDR is to accurately represent the wide range of intensity levels found in real scenes ranging from direct sunlight to the deepest shadows.

I believe the "fake" HDR that is being mentioned is the process of taking one image, generating 3 different exposures from it, and then using those 3 images for the tone mapping. The "proper" way to make an HDR is to physically take 3 photographs at different exposures and use those for the tone mapping.

Whats the difference between 3 seperate exposures, and 1 exposure shot in RAW and adjusted with exposure bias in a RAW editor.
That sounds like an argument....its meant to be a question I dont know the answer to..
I'm not deep in digital..