What are the differences between these HDR pictures?

mschoelen · Sep 25, 2006

I am trying to learn about HDR technique and ended up searching HDR on flickR. Now I have seen some that look cartoonish (first picture below) and some that look very realistic (second picture below). Are they even both HDR pictures? Maybe i'm just getting alot of these cartoon looking pictures when typing HDR? What are the differences? Is it something you can change in photoshop, or something you have to worry about while taking the picture? What kinds of things will change the outcome of the picture? Any help is appreciated. Thank you.

http://static.flickr.com/55/124743492_95f77c925e.jpg

http://www.tonyhowell.co.uk/new/4577lakedistrict.jpg

I would like to add (incase you didn't see) neither one of these are my pictures. Hopefully the people won't mind, since I am trying to learn

Pixel9ine · Sep 25, 2006

Subscribing... also interested on the different processes used for each picture..

Arch · Sep 25, 2006

I dont think you can leave these pictures up im affraid..... if they are not yours, you cant display them.

However i will answer your question anyway...... yes they both could be HDR... the first one looks like its been done in Photomatix to me.... and the second was probably done in Photoshop. This doesnt really matter because either method can be done in either programme..... but photomatix quite often gives more of a cartoony look.

Really all thats happened here is the processing...... the second image is quite subtle.... once (if*) the HDR method has been applied, using a simple local adaption, not much else has been done to it.

The first image however has been 'tinkered' with in the HDR process to make all the shadows and highlights fairly even..... again using local adaption. But when its been bought into photoshop the contrast has then been enhanced.....(even tho the tones are still quite even) and very possibly the shadow highlight tool has been used to maximise every last bit of info the image has. This can make the image look unatural..... and gives you the illustration look to it.

* im not so sure this image is even HDR.... or if it is, then the sky has been replaced and the forground hasnt benefited from the HDR process.

Hope this helps.

Rob · Sep 25, 2006

My best guess would be that neither image is HDR. The bottom one is not HDR from the EXIF information - 1/1000th at f8 in aperture priority mode at 23mm Auto Exposure Auto White Balance Capture Normal -2EV exposure compensation (Watendlath Tarn, near Keswick, The Lake District, Cumbria, England).

The top one is a composite image I would say. The sky and the tank are almost certainly not shot on the same day with the same focal length / focussing point. I would think it's a stock photo of a tank with a stock photo of a stormy sky taken by different people on different occasions and then photoshopped together by someone different again.

Just my guess - anyone else?

Rob

LaFoto · Sep 25, 2006

mschoelen, since these two example pics are not your own, I changed your posting them to mere links. People can still click on the links and see what you mean. Only don't we display work that isn't ours in any of our galleries. All right?

And I am interested in our real experts' answers to your question, too!

mschoelen · Sep 25, 2006

Ok sounds good, ill remember next time.

abraxas · Sep 25, 2006

Here's the link to the page the second photo is on. Running my own web site I have people snitch my bandwidth where I'd rather have my shots (no matter how poor/good) seen in the context I put them on the web for.

http://www.tonyhowell.co.uk/new/4577lakedistrict.htm

Beside that, Mr Howell appears to have a very good quality body of work online.

http://www.tonyhowell.co.uk/

mschoelen · Sep 25, 2006

Maybe it has to do with the number of photos you take for highlighting certain parts? And not bluring the colors together?

markc · Sep 26, 2006

I agree with Rob. I don't think either are examples of real HDR. You might want to check out some of the other threads on HDR that are here.

mschoelen · Sep 28, 2006

So what is it called, and im guessing Archangel was correct on what he has said makes the pitures look "toony?"

ksmattfish · Oct 2, 2006

mschoelen said:
Now I have seen some that look cartoonish (first picture below) and some that look very realistic (second picture below). Are they even both HDR pictures? Maybe i'm just getting alot of these cartoon looking pictures when typing HDR? What are the differences?

I don't know if these are both HDR or not, but I understand what you are asking. The look to an HDR image has a lot to do with local contrast (google it for tons of info). Local contrast can be manipulated in many different ways besides HDR images created from multiple exposures: burning, dodging, lighting control, and so on.

The "cartoonish" look is just local contrast manipulation taken to an extreme. It looks like a painting or illustration, because that's where we are used to seeing such exaggerated local contrast manipulation. Right now the software Photomatix is very popular for creating HDR images, and it comes with a plug-in for tone-mapping (another local contrast manipulation method). At it's default settings it tends to spit out these illustration looking images. Adobe CS2 HDR software defaults tend to start out with a more subtle, realistic look. If the settings are played with it's possible get the realistic look with Photomatix, and the cartoony look with CS2.