First post me here (HDR)

The photo is certainly tone mapped, but it's not likely an HDR, which is made from multiple exposures. That would explain the runners.

Software like Topaz Adjust can make a single, tone mapped image look like an HDR.

The scene did not require multiple exposures because it doesn't have that much dynamic range.

By the way, HDR's can be made of moving objects, but it's not easy.

HDR just stands for high dynamic range. There is nothing in there about multiple exposures. It's just a different way of representing a scene that is more easily displayed on a computer monitor or in print. Multiple exposures contribute to an HDR picture having less noise and more detail, but it's not completely necessary.


Correct me if i'm wrong but...

Actually, you can't create an "HDR" from one shot, even if in RAW. What you're doing in RAW is uncovering what's already in the properly exposed photo (you just can't see it because of the middle-ground light processing). With a real negative or positive exposure you're generating data that wouldn't even be there with a proper exposure. There is simply no way to fake an HDR, it must be multiple-exposure.

Anything that shows a tonal range, not possible with a single exposure is HDR by definition. However, no one is going to tone map 5 exposures in LR to make an HDR, if they're going that far they know how to do it right, and will do so.
 
Depends. I mean I have done it quite a few times. I have had situations where the sky looked like garbage with a good foreground exposure, so I just created a file with the sky exposed the way I envisioned it. You can do the same thing with multiple parts of a photo that just dont flow otherwise.

I wouldnt try and do an extreme version where you are trying to compensate for something that just isnt there.
 
Thank you for your responses

Though I do not understand something of the translation

I am from Saudi Arabia
The time is now 2:00 p.m.

Of course you want to register in this forum to participate in and take your guidance


And I hope that is the one who wants to write Eloquency to translate it!​
 
The photo is certainly tone mapped, but it's not likely an HDR, which is made from multiple exposures. That would explain the runners.

Software like Topaz Adjust can make a single, tone mapped image look like an HDR.

The scene did not require multiple exposures because it doesn't have that much dynamic range.

By the way, HDR's can be made of moving objects, but it's not easy.

HDR just stands for high dynamic range. There is nothing in there about multiple exposures. It's just a different way of representing a scene that is more easily displayed on a computer monitor or in print. Multiple exposures contribute to an HDR picture having less noise and more detail, but it's not completely necessary.


Correct me if i'm wrong but...

Actually, you can't create an "HDR" from one shot, even if in RAW. What you're doing in RAW is uncovering what's already in the properly exposed photo (you just can't see it because of the middle-ground light processing). With a real negative or positive exposure you're generating data that wouldn't even be there with a proper exposure. There is simply no way to fake an HDR, it must be multiple-exposure.

Anything that shows a tonal range, not possible with a single exposure is HDR by definition. However, no one is going to tone map 5 exposures in LR to make an HDR, if they're going that far they know how to do it right, and will do so.

a 1DmkII can capture 11 stops of light with a 2048:1 contrast ratio. An LCD display can show 9.5 stops of light with a 700:1 contrast ratio. Clearly, there is room to create an HDR image from the data stored in 1 digital exposure. Making an HDR image from multiple exposures will yield a final product with more data, but a one exposure HDR image is definitely in the realm of reality.

I'd also like to know the method you used to achieve the "HDR" (notice the quotes) with moving subjects.

google is your friend.

Not really HDR, ace. That's fake HDR in my book. HDR is multiple exposures, not a single image where you modified the exposure in ACR. Which is a lossy way to do things.

Good thing your book isn't the end all be all of photography.
 
Can we start one more conversation on this thread? Weird.
 
anyone up for hookers and blow tonight?......... to much?
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top