First HDR attempt:

[fiveoboy01]

I tried not to overdo it, I'm not a fan of way-overdone images.

This was a 5-exposure image... I've posted the "middle" exposed image followed by the results after running it through Photomatix. Sorry for the watermarks, I plan on buying the program next week.

I think that this was a decent candidate for HDR, mainly I can see that it brought out the tread detail on the driver's side tire and the headlight buckets, as well as some detail on the sheetmetal of the buildings behind it.

But, I want to ask you guys, do you think this photo was a good candidate for an HDR image? Why or why not? And do you think I went a little overboard on the saturation?

 

[RONDAL]

this does not belong in this section of the forum.

 

[manaheim]

this does not belong in this section of the forum.

I think what Rondal is getting at is that there is an HDR section you could have posted this in.

That being said, back to your original question...

1. I don't think this was a great candidate for HDR because there was VERY little difference between your middle-exposure shot and what you got in HDR. In fact the very first question that popped into my head when I saw the scene was "Ok, why is he making this into an HDR, exactly?"

The trick here is that there isn't a lot in a very extreme level of shadow or brightness that you cannot capture using a single exposure. Sure, there's a LITTLE, but VERY VERY little in this case.

...you actually just reminded me of someplace where HDRs would be very cool... which would be if you took a picture of the INSIDE of the cab of this beastie. Old junkers are very neat inside, but it's REALLY hard to get a good picture of the interior because of the variance of light, and simply popping up a flash totally ruins the effect.

2. You did "fine" with the treatment, I think, but the saturation is abit much and I don't think you could ever get this one really tack-on because I think you started with an off subject to begin with.

 

[manaheim]

Here... from another thread...

It appears to be a shot that you can get without HDR, so all HDR does is muddy up the shot.

HDR (or rather tonemapping), is intended to give you a higher dynamic range than would be possible in a normal image. A "usual" example of this is trying to shoot the interior of a building towards a window... normally either the interior would be exposed properly and the exterior would be washed out... or the exterior would be exposed properly and the interior would be black.

An tonemapping process to gain a more high dynamic range image solves this.

EDITED EXAMPLE...

Here... here is what would normally happen if you try to expose this properly for the interior...



And here is what would happen when you expose properly for the EXTERIOR...



The problem is that both of these images suck, but the camera simply is unable to replicate what you and I see, which is closer to this tonemapped HDR image...

 

[fiveoboy01]

this does not belong in this section of the forum.

Sorry, I did not realize there was an hdr-specific forum. The forum description states that HDR is a category here. Perhaps next time you could point me in the right direction, like Chris did...

Chris, thanks for your thorough expanation. I'd like to get in the cab too... Maybe I will sneak back and see if it opens.

 

[manaheim]

My pleasure. I'll be curious to see your results. PM me if you do it or I may miss it.

 

[RONDAL]

thanks manaheim you have a way of making what i say pretty