HDR attempt in LR

[zulu42]

Just to give it a try, 5 exposures merged in LR. I take it LR is not the program of choice for serious HDR. Comments welcome, and thank you for looking.

 

[Ysarex]

Nice shot -- I like it.

Joe

 

[zulu42]

Thanks Joe!

 

[weepete]

Very nice! I think lightroom is ok for HDR, I use it for most of mine. Compositionally your shot is good, it's got a nice flow through the shot.

What aperture did you use for these shots?

 

[smoke665]

Nice shot, I like the way it leads you in. I use LR for HDR because I'm lazy, but when I have the time I have a copy of Corel PXP that I think does a better job on HDR.

 

[zulu42]

What aperture did you use for these shots?

Thank you weepete!

The aperture was f/9.0 and the shutter speeds ranged from 1/4s to 1/400s. ISO 125

I've tried the LR HDR merge a few times. I never seem to get that super cooked HDR look. There's not much to adjust, only the anti ghosting (low, med, high), as far as I can tell.

Also, the conversion to .jpeg from Lightroom's .hdr file seemed to introduce more IQ loss than a normal .nef to .jpeg conversion. Has anybody else noticed this?

Thanks again

 

[JonA_CT]

If NIK collection is still free, I like their HDR merge plug in for LR.

 

[smoke665]

Oh yes I keep forgetting about it. It works better than lr

 

[zulu42]

Same area, different day, different composition. It is a 15 minute drive up a dirt road to one of my favorite spots. I can get a view in any direction.

The green lichen on the rocks looks weird, but it really is an accurate color, and it has the same iridescent quality to the naked eye.

 

[ronlane]

What aperture did you use for these shots?

Thank you weepete!

The aperture was f/9.0 and the shutter speeds ranged from 1/4s to 1/400s. ISO 125

I've tried the LR HDR merge a few times. I never seem to get that super cooked HDR look. There's not much to adjust, only the anti ghosting (low, med, high), as far as I can tell.

Also, the conversion to .jpeg from Lightroom's .hdr file seemed to introduce more IQ loss than a normal .nef to .jpeg conversion. Has anybody else noticed this?

Thanks again

You want that super cooked HDR look? There is still plenty that you can do in LR after the merge. That file is a raw equivalent so all the data is there. Do a curves adjustment and play with the HSL, clarity, dehaze. alter the whites, blacks, highlights and shadows.

I think that first image is quite nice as is.

 

[zulu42]

Thanks Ron. I have learned to get more out of the hdr file after the conversion. I no longer use the auto tone selection during the merge, and have found that super cooked look.

I don't necessarily want that super cooked look, especially on landscapes, but I want to be able to get it if desired. I often like how it looks on man made subjects like machinery and architecture.

In my ignorance, at first I expected to merge some images to hdr, and the result would automatically pop out super cooked. Every day I learn something here!

 

[The Barbarian]

If you want an easy way to get that cooked HDR look, try this:
AutoHDR - One-click HDR Imaging from single photos

 

[BrentC]

NIK Collection has great tools including HDR. Since Dx0 bought it they don't have it available for download because they are coming out with t=a new version. If you want the free Google release of NIK, pm me and I will make it available for you.

 

[AlanKlein]

You seen to have accomplished what HDR can be used for - providing a range of exposures that cannot be done in a single shot. However, I'm not a fan of HDR because it tends to flatten out contrast making a picture boring. Also, it tends to bring out shadows which then competes with the main part of the picture - the more lighted areas the eyes are attracted too. I think part of the attraction of HDR is that people do it because it can be done. Technically it works. But it winds up hurting the artistic effect which I believe is more important then capturing a larger dynamic range.

Two thirds of your picture is the foreground weeds that have no attractive appeal. The subject in my view is the mountains and sun in the background. However, that area is not in focus. The weeds are. Also, who cares about looking at messy weeds? Crop most of the weeds out. They add nothing to the picture. Leave that area darker and bring out the background mountains and sun.

Shooting requires selecting the subject before you shoot. HDR doesn't eliminate that process. Good luck.

 

[zulu42]

Thanks for the reply. I tend to agree with your opinion on HDR, generally speaking. However, I enjoy a lot of HDR images that have a purpose for using HDR, and /or when it is artfully done. It's a modern imaging technique I'd like to have in the "tool bag" as needed. Actually, I just have fun playing with images. There's the primary goal.

As it turns out, I have basically been using hdr in place of a graduated filter. When the sky and the landscape require different exposure.

But, I will keep in mind selecting a subject before I shoot