HDR you going to bash this?

[bkristopher]

I often have to photograph assets owned by the company where I am employed. Since joining this forum I have been exposed to High Dynamic Range. I have done some reading on the subject and decided to play around in Photoshop on some of my older shots that I think could have benefited from the technique. Though I believe this is completely backwards I tried anyway to adjust the exposures of a photo and use Photoshops merge to HDR and failed miserably. I tried again using my own exposure adjusted layers with the thought process behind HDR and came up with the below. So I guess after that long winded intro I have a few questions.

1. Is the below considered HDR?

2. Can you create HDR images from Photoshop without the use of Photomatrix (which I believe is another program)?


Before:

After:

 

[pbelarge]

It is very subtle and looks more like you changed the exposure.

Nice job of cloning out the unwanted portions of the image.

 

[rallysman]

If it's a well done HDR, and you want people to accept it for a good photo, stop pointing out that it's HDR....

With that said, I do like the second image. The subject is a bit boring but what you made out of it is well done.

 

[bkristopher]

It is very subtle and looks more like you changed the exposure.

Nice job of cloning out the unwanted portions of the image.

I guess you are right. I didn't really think it that way. I was interested in the theory behind and just thought it could be applied to existing photographs to improve.

 

[DennyCrane]

Bad HDR has massive halos and cartoonish colors. Proper HDR simply extends the dynamic range of the picture. Yours works.

 

[KmH]

But is not an HDR if it's made from fewer than 3 separate exposures made a shor time apart.

You could actually do a better job just doing some simple edits in ACR.

Photoshop CS has an HDR feature but it is nowhere as good as Photomatix is.

Before:

Using ACR/CS5, but I didn't touch a saturation slider in either application, but I did adjust the mid-tone contrast..

 

[Lipoly]

Nice job removing water tower, but it seems the hdr image is overexposed in some areas (white on overhang over the entrance).

 

[bkristopher]

some simple edits in ACR.

HAHAHA!! I wish I was at the point where I could say what you did was simple.

You have answered the question though. It was only two exposures not shot a short time from each other.

 

[KKJUN]

How can that be an HDR image? i thought a true HDR image is supposed to be combined of multiple exposures? Or am I not getting the point of HDR?

 

[bkristopher]

How can that be an HDR image? i thought a true HDR image is supposed to be combined of multiple exposures? Or am I not getting the point of HDR?

Your right..I guess technically it isn't. My impression from this site is that it is highly debated. I don't have the knowledge to get involved with such a debate.

 

[benlonghair]

No offense, KmH, I like the OP's final product better. The ACR looks like one of those annoying overdone HDR images that are so derided here.

 

[supraman215]

Looks like all that photo needed was some PS work not HDR. You could go back and do it in HDR by exposing for the sky, then exposing for the building then maybe for the driveway. What town is that?

 

[Robin Usagani]

I agree with removing the blue sign on the right and the branches on the left. But I think the water tower has to stay.

 

[bkristopher]

Looks like all that photo needed was some PS work not HDR. You could go back and do it in HDR by exposing for the sky, then exposing for the building then maybe for the driveway. What town is that?

Thanks for the comment. Adjusting layer exposures in PS was how my final product was achieved, and why the HDR question came to be. I am just happy that I am learning new ways to achieve a final result. Naming the process is not a priority to me at this point.

This is Greenville, DE.