been practicing realistic HDR's

marmots · Apr 21, 2012

so here's what iv've got

this first one is just a room in my house, comprised of 5 bracketed exposures
it was very unevenly lit

this was a set of exposures i took a long time ago, and made into one of those over done HDR's
this is my third attempt with that set, this time i went for realism
a also had to do some levels adjustments on different areas of this one in the end

Crollo · Apr 21, 2012

I'm not sure there is such thing as a 'realistic' HDR. HDR may be warranted if your imaging medium's dynamic is less then the human eye, but an image that exceeds the dynamic range of the eye? Yeah, not 'realistic'.

That being said I see absolutely nothing in either of those two images that would exceed the dynamic range of a DSLR sensor OR the human eye so I'm assuming HDR is being used to an artistic effect, which is so ironic given that you're going for 'realistic'.

marmots · Apr 21, 2012

Crollo said:
I'm not sure there is such thing as a 'realistic' HDR. HDR may be warranted if your imaging medium's dynamic is less then the human eye, but an image that exceeds the dynamic range of the eye? Yeah, not 'realistic'.

ok fine...

here are my realistic "bracketed, composited, and tone mapped" images

but just to be concise im still going to call them HDR's
plus most beginners only know that term out of all the terms listed

OscarWilde · Apr 21, 2012

Not sure I know what you are going for... I love both images, but realistic? Photographs are about as close to "real" as one can get in the business of copying reality. Bracketing etc doesn't make them less real... Unless your trying to get them to be HDR without looking like they are HDR... in which case I'm not sure I see the point!! :lol:

Like I said, Love the images though :thumbup: Maybe just a bit more explanation as to what you were trying to achieve?

marmots · Apr 21, 2012

the point of bracketing them was to get an even, proper exposure, without using any artificial lighting

marmots · Apr 21, 2012

here are the middle exposures from each of them

Majeed Badizadegan · Apr 21, 2012

Love the second one. Phenomenal shot!

Only minor quibble would be to get the whole chair legs in the frame next time.

manaheim · Apr 21, 2012

Crollo said:
I'm not sure there is such thing as a 'realistic' HDR. HDR may be warranted if your imaging medium's dynamic is less then the human eye, but an image that exceeds the dynamic range of the eye? Yeah, not 'realistic'.

That being said I see absolutely nothing in either of those two images that would exceed the dynamic range of a DSLR sensor OR the human eye so I'm assuming HDR is being used to an artistic effect, which is so ironic given that you're going for 'realistic'.

I pick on people all the time on this forum for unecessary HDRs, but this statement is absolutely false. Both of those images show more than you could get in a single exposure AND he's not exceeding what the human eye can see, he's just exceeding what can be had with a single exposure.

To OP... ignore this guy.

Also, marmots, I think you did a pretty good job. They look a LITTLE overcooked... try backing down the saturation a little. Other than that, I think you did a nice job.

BTW, also always be mindful of all things composition. I know that wasn't your primary concern here, but the tilt in the first shot is pretty significant and easily fixed.

Keep at it.

fenderjaguar · Apr 22, 2012

I agree with manaheim. I don't know what some of the others were talking about. Nice pics.

Bynx · Apr 22, 2012

The only problem I see with your shots is they are too vibrant. In Photoshop if you make the Vibrancy about -24 the over saturated reds and blues will be toned down to a more realistic look. Other than that these are both great examples of good HDR.

rexbobcat · Apr 22, 2012

I agree. They don't really show realism in my opinion but they are well done. I say that because they have that shimmering effect that HDRs sometimes have between the light and dark values.

They're not overcooked though. No haloing as far as I can see.

Dillard · Apr 22, 2012

I agree, maybe a tad on the cooked side, but very nice overall!

marmots · Apr 22, 2012

thank you

Crollo · Apr 23, 2012

manaheim said:
I pick on people all the time on this forum for unecessary HDRs, but this statement is absolutely false. Both of those images show more than you could get in a single exposure AND he's not exceeding what the human eye can see, he's just exceeding what can be had with a single exposure.

HDR may be warranted if your imaging medium's dynamic [range] is less then the human eye

.

Judobreaker · Apr 23, 2012

Ehm... lol.
How do I put this...
That's just bull****. xD

First of all, the human eye can probably never be compared to any photo as it's way more complex than a camera sensor.
It's dynamic range doesn't work the same, the human eye is a cheater on all fronts. It can correct what you see by using your own memory, the brain is way smart.

Second, HDR means the dynamic range is simply higher than what you could achieve with a single exposure.
This means that instead of completely dark areas in the shadows and/or completely white areas in the highlights you will also see details there.
In other words: A good HDR photo does not look like it needed a HDR shot if you only look at the HDR photo!
If you look at the individual photos that were used for that HDR though you will see dark shadows or white highlights (exactly like in the middle exposure shots marmots posted).

Having said that I think marmot pretty much nailed the HDR aspect of these photos.