HDR Cherry Bloosoms

[Trblmkr]

Here are a few pictures that I put together using Photomatix for a little something interesting.

1.

HDR Blossom by trbl_2, on Flickr

2.

HDR Bloosom2 by trbl_2, on Flickr

 

[Light Guru]

They didn't need HDR.

 

[cgipson1]

If you are going to use HDR... you need to take enough varied exposures to prevent the blown out whites you have here. That is one of the reasons HDR is used. Personally I would have just diffused the light to prevent the harsh contrasts. I would call this more Tone-Mapping.. than HDR.... and the Guru is correct, they didn't need it!

 

[Trblmkr]

Thanks for the comments. This is from 5 different exposures so not sure how many more I would have needed to accomplish what you two are suggesting?. As for the blown out whites, that could be simple me still playing around with Photomatix and not fully aware of what all of the sliders do.

 

[Light Guru]

This is from 5 different exposures so not sure how many more I would have needed to accomplish what you two are suggesting?

We are suggesting you don't need to do HDR at all for this image.

 

[Trblmkr]

Here is the normal with LR adjustments.

Cropped
Tint +14

Exposure -.75
Contrast -21
High lights +21
Shadows +100
Whites +25
Blacks +26

Clarity +30
Vibrance +25

Lum
Red -47
Orange +38
Green +13

And Lens Correction.


DSC_0361-1 by trbl_2, on Flickr

 

[manaheim]

You can sometimes get benefit of a properly exposed "all lit" subject by using HDR... but usually not. Usually it just muddies the picture.

To understand, you need to better understand what HDR accomplishes for you... which is to increase the dynamic range of light possible in a single image, where a camera would otherwise fail to properly show all elements of the picture due to extreme shadow or brightness.

For example, this particular situation would normally wind up looking like this...

Or this...

But when you use HDR, you can get this...

Much better.


What you have in your shot is a case where the subject is fairly evenly lit, or at least even enough that the camera can get all of the range of light and shadow within its dynamic range. Therefore a single standard shot would work equally well (or better!) than multiple shots merged together.

In other words... it is not a shot that needs HDR.

Get it?

 

[Steve5D]

This is from 5 different exposures so not sure how many more I would have needed to accomplish what you two are suggesting?

We are suggesting you don't need to do HDR at all for this image.

I can think of dozens of things that don't "need" to be done to pictures, yet people do them all the time...

 

[manaheim]

This is from 5 different exposures so not sure how many more I would have needed to accomplish what you two are suggesting?

We are suggesting you don't need to do HDR at all for this image.

I can think of dozens of things that don't "need" to be done to pictures, yet people do them all the time...

What's your point?

 

[duhast]

^
LOL...

 

[Pallycow]

Saying something doesn't "need" hdr is not always an insult or bad comment as many people take it. I believe here it was actually said to help, not insult. Knowing when and image "needs" hdr, or will be better suited using hdr is a hard concept sometimes for someone just learning.

 

[Trblmkr]

Saying something doesn't "need" hdr is not always an insult or bad comment as many people take it. I believe here it was actually said to help, not insult. Knowing when and image "needs" hdr, or will be better suited using hdr is a hard concept sometimes for someone just learning.

Nah I don't take it bad. I come here to learn, and the people here are very opinionated and active. Other boards I can post a picture and not have a single comment, so I'm not upset.

 

[that1guy]

first 1 is pretty good