"Realistic" HDRs C&C wanted.

bnz506 · Apr 11, 2007

I know people have their opinions about HDRs, some like and some dont. Although ive gotten bored with HDRs lately I still love the technique and hope to master it. I discovered (through a flicker search) a group of people who make "realistic" looking HDRs. I think these pictures look EXCELLENT and I really want to master this style of HDRs. Here is my first attempt.

"HDR" looking HDR:

My first "realistic" looking HDR attempt" (comment, Opinion feelings please?)

The original file:

Another "realistic" HDR attempt

technically my first attempt)
My mommy

and gramp paw after some delicious :drool:

Dim Sum in 8th ave Brooklyn, NY.

Alex_B · Apr 11, 2007

I know what you mean by HDRs looking not "realistic" that is because images are often produced with a rather extreme dynamic range on purpose which makes them look hyper-plastic and almost like a painting.

I guess what you want to achieve is to create images of scenes with variation in brightness beyond what a sensor can capture ... as in the typical case when the sky is too bright and the foreground too dark to get both exposed properly at the same time. Then you can apply what some people call DRI (dynamic range increase) techniques to combine two or more exposures into one image which then is properly exposed for shadows and highlights alike.

Looking at your original exposure tells me, that that scene was easily captured with the limited DR of your camera. So there is no reason for DRI techniques.

Then what you call a realistic HDR, to me looks more like a properly exposed image where you increased the contrast, which IMHO worked well on the sky and looks a bit odd on the vehicles. At least for the sky a similar effect could have been created with a polariser maybe. Cannot see any HDR here really (and there would be no need to!).

bnz506 · Apr 11, 2007

I actually up'ed the contrast for the original picture as much as I could before whites started blowing up.

Ive never learned about DRIs sounds like something I would be interested in for the good shots that need it and I dont want in HDR. Thank you I will benefit greatly from this. Im going to read up on this.

I pretty much only use HDRs for the shots I find otherwise boring... The HDR effect seems to make shots more interesting but I dont want them to have too much of that "HDR" look.

I posted a shot awhile back "mean streets of Brooklyn" I really liked that shot but the original was dreadfully boring. I tried to add grain to it but it just made the shot look awful so i turned it into an HDR and gave the shot new life.

Does that make sense?

-edit-

I think that 3rd one looks as if it would if I was looking at it with my own two eyes, the original doesnt look anything like that. I think HDR worked really well there.

Alex_B · Apr 11, 2007

HDR, DRI (HDRI?) and all are mixed up very often in terms of terminology. And I confess I myself never really tried to de-mess all this in my own brain yet
...

But my guess is that many so-called HDRs are not really HDR but just contrast enhaced images like yours.

Sw1tchFX · Apr 11, 2007

See, almost all the time, if i'm doing an HDR, i don't want it to look convincing. I want that over the top look.

Alex_B · Apr 11, 2007

Sw1tchFX said:
See, almost all the time, if i'm doing an HDR, i don't want it to look convincing. I want that over the top look.

Yes, it is a form of art ... and different from the things I do when I try to compensate for the limitations of my camera's sensor

rhommel · Apr 11, 2007

I like your HDRs bnz506. I take it you did it with a single raw file. By definition, HDR is created from multiple exposure images. some will use bracketing, but some have more patience than others which use more than 6 exposures.

I noticed the white van has a little 'burn' at the back. You can probably get rid of this by changing your 'Strength' and 'Light Smoothing' settings, if you are using photomatix. the tutorial is here http://hdrphotos.net/content/view/11/25/

Mohain · Apr 11, 2007

rhommel said:
By definition, HDR is created from multiple exposure images.

People are getting too hung up on the exact definition. If the dymic range of a photo has been increased, by any method, then it has a Higher Dymanic Range than it did before, therefore it can be called an HDR image.

bnz506 said:
I pretty much only use HDRs for the shots I find otherwise boring... The HDR effect seems to make shots more interesting but I dont want them to have too much of that "HDR" look.

And herein lies the problem. Processing wont turn a bad photo into a good one but it will bring out that interesting detail that might be otherwise be lost.

klissarov ik · Apr 17, 2007

Out of curiosity, could this be considered HDR?

Alex_B · Apr 17, 2007

looks like an oversaturated version of the first image with some extreme extra halos. the halos probably do not come from the extra saturation or pushing contrast, but since you tried something more complicated? the lower part looks a bit HDR-ish, but not more than the one posted. you lost a lot of subtlenessclearness in the image through your way of editing

rhommel · Apr 30, 2007

Mohain said:
People are getting too hung up on the exact definition. If the dymic range of a photo has been increased, by any method, then it has a Higher Dymanic Range than it did before, therefore it can be called an HDR image.

how are u going to increase the dynamic range without combining 2 or more exposures?

the word RANGE is explanation enough... you cant have a range if you only have 1 item

(range between 1 to 5, ranging from $1-$10, etc) you cant say the price ranges from $1 to $1, now can you?

Arch · Apr 30, 2007

rhommel said:
how are u going to increase the dynamic range without combining 2 or more exposures?

By using the zone system perhaps? HDR is not a phrase that was invented for the new multi image HDRIs... mohain is correct in that increasing dynamic range at any capacity is in effect creating a HDR image.... and its been done in film photography for a long time now.

rhommel · Apr 30, 2007

Archangel said:
By using the zone system perhaps? HDR is not a phrase that was invented for the new multi image HDRIs... mohain is correct in that increasing dynamic range at any capacity is in effect creating a HDR image.... and its been done in film photography for a long time now.

Zone system is still a combination of 2 or more items, is it not? combining light and dark? you can not combine anything with only 1 item... here's a good read... http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/zone.htm

"Ansel Adams chose to divide the range between white and black into about ten zones. Each is an f/stop apart."

my main point here is, HDR is created using multiple exposure... you can not create an HDR with a single exposure. you can create with a single RAW file....

zendianah · Apr 30, 2007

bnz506 said:
I know people have their opinions about HDRs, some like and some dont. Although ive gotten bored with HDRs lately I still love the technique and hope to master it. I discovered (through a flicker search) a group of people who make "realistic" looking HDRs. I think these pictures look EXCELLENT and I really want to master this style of HDRs. Here is my first attempt.

"HDR" looking HDR:

My first "realistic" looking HDR attempt" (comment, Opinion feelings please?)

The original file:

Another "realistic" HDR attempttechnically my first attempt)
My mommy and gramp paw after some delicious Dim Sum in 8th ave Brooklyn, NY.